From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 1 05:00:02 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:00:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] History of the IGF Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EF4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Avri, Milton, Bill & Co. With regard to our Meissen discussion on the history of the IGF I found in my archives two statements long before Tunis which I made on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus and where "forum function" and "multistakeholderism" were key points. In the Paris Statement (July 2003) we called it the "Global Information Society Observation Council" (GISOC). The GISOC proposal more or less outlined functions which later reflected in the Tunis mandate for the IGF. The more formal proposal from the CS was drafted by Bill and me on behalf of the CS Internet Governance Caucus at PrepCom3 in September 2003 in Geneva, long before the WGIG was created and proposed the launch of the IGF. The whole IG discussion within WSIS was kick started during PrepCom2 in June 2003 in Geneva when we had, inter alia, a Workshop "Civil Society and WSIS" in the official programme of PrepCom2 organized (and moderated) by Bertrand and me. (21 February, 10:00-13:00 - ILO building - Workshop lll: CIVIL SOCIETY AND WSIS. see flyer >> 27 kB [English ] ). http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory/prepcom/pc2/inf/index.html After the workshop we moved to the ILO rerstaurant where we discussed the need to establish an institutionalized platform which we called "CS Internet Governance Caucus" (IGC). Originally, Internet Governance was not a main issue in the WSIS. First priority for WSIS was bridging the digital divide, however the ITU was very interested to bring the IG debate under the WSIS umbrella as a counterplatform to ICANN, which as established in 1998 as an alternative to ITU efforts to get the control over the DNS and the A Root Server. The IG debate within WSIS was triggered by the the "Beirut Declaration" (February 2003), the regional ministerial conference for West Asia which includes the following paragraph "Securing national domain names: The responsibility for root directories and domain names should rest with a suitable international organization and should take multilingualism into consideration. Countries' top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment should be the sovereign right of countries. The sovereignty of each nation should be protected and respected. Internet governance should be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should take into account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as those of the civil society." The rumor says that the ITU was not satisfied with the outcome of the other four regional ministerial conferences, where Internet Governance was sidelined. To get a "mandate" for IG, the Beirut conference was the last chance for the ITU to include it into the WSIS agenda as a high priority issue. I myself did not participate in the Beirut conference, but I was told that YJ Pak from Korea made the relevant statement which then was reflected in the "Beirut Declaration". If you compare the "Beirut Statenment" with the "Paris/Geneva statements" you see a difference. Insofar - looking backwards - it was not a surprise, that when YJ and I co-chaired the IGC in the first WSIS phase until December 2003, we had some internal disputes and it was not easy to reach consensus within the IGC from the very early day ;-(((. However, the net result - seven years later - is that we avoided to bring DNS etc. under an intergovernmental control/oversight mechanism and we were able to launch a multistakeholder IGF. Nice history, isn´t it? Do other people have more documents in their archives? Probably it would make sense to write a short history of the IGF. Too late for the UN GA in 2010, but probably helpful for the forthcoming deeper IGF evalution forseen for 2011. Wolfgang Here is the key part of the Paris statement " In a broader context of ICT policy making and global governance, we invite the WSIS to consider launching a "Global Information Society Observation Council" which could serve as a meeting point for improved coordination, consultation and communication on ICT issues. Such a "Council" should be composed of representatives of governments, private industry and civil society. It could promote the exchange of information, experiences and best practices on issues from privacy to free speech on the Internet, from IPR to eCommerce, from Ipv6 to ENUM. Listening to the good experiences of others is a cheap investment and could become a source of inspiration for innovative policy development in the 21st Century. We will provide the WSIS secretariat with a new proposed language for the Items 33 and 44. WSIS Interesessional, Paris, July 2003 http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/plenary/internet_governance_group.pdf Here is another Statement I made a year later in the GFC meeting on Multistakeholderism WSIS Group of the Friends of the Chair, Geneva, September 2004 http://www.worldsummit2005.de/downloa d_en/Speech-Geneva-2004-10-Kleinwaechter.pdf 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Aug 1 09:05:39 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 10:05:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] History of the IGF In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EF4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EF4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C557123.6050303@cafonso.ca> Quite interesting recollection, Wolf. So it seems the seminal IG proposals derive from the multilateral Beirut declaration of Feb.2003. For me was an interesting time, as I was joining the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee again (my first Icann meeting was the Rome one in March 2003 incidentally) after helping to build a proposal for a multistakeholder CGI.br to the new federal government (Lula), which was basically accepted. At the time, I had no idea of the Beirut meeting and got in contact with this new "universe" as my NGO also joined the WSIS process. I think putting together the many historical pieces could result in an interesting story indeed. frt rgds --c.a. On 08/01/2010 06:00 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Hi Avri, Milton, Bill& Co. > > With regard to our Meissen discussion on the history of the IGF I > found in my archives two statements long before Tunis which I made on > behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus and where > "forum function" and "multistakeholderism" were key points. In the > Paris Statement (July 2003) we called it the "Global Information > Society Observation Council" (GISOC). The GISOC proposal more or less > outlined functions which later reflected in the Tunis mandate for the > IGF. The more formal proposal from the CS was drafted by Bill and me > on behalf of the CS Internet Governance Caucus at PrepCom3 in > September 2003 in Geneva, long before the WGIG was created and > proposed the launch of the IGF. > > The whole IG discussion within WSIS was kick started during PrepCom2 > in June 2003 in Geneva when we had, inter alia, a Workshop "Civil > Society and WSIS" in the official programme of PrepCom2 organized > (and moderated) by Bertrand and me. (21 February, 10:00-13:00 - ILO > building - Workshop lll: CIVIL SOCIETY AND WSIS. see flyer>> 27 kB > [English ] > ). http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory/prepcom/pc2/inf/index.html > After the workshop we moved to the ILO rerstaurant where we discussed > the need to establish an institutionalized platform which we called > "CS Internet Governance Caucus" (IGC). Originally, Internet > Governance was not a main issue in the WSIS. First priority for WSIS > was bridging the digital divide, however the ITU was very interested > to bring the IG debate under the WSIS umbrella as a counterplatform > to ICANN, which as established in 1998 as an alternative to ITU > efforts to get the control over the DNS and the A Root Server. > > The IG debate within WSIS was triggered by the the "Beirut > Declaration" (February 2003), the regional ministerial conference for > West Asia which includes the following paragraph "Securing national > domain names: The responsibility for root directories and domain > names should rest with a suitable international organization and > should take multilingualism into consideration. Countries' > top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment > should be the sovereign right of countries. The sovereignty of each > nation should be protected and respected. Internet governance should > be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should take into > account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as those > of the civil society." > > The rumor says that the ITU was not satisfied with the outcome of the > other four regional ministerial conferences, where Internet > Governance was sidelined. To get a "mandate" for IG, the Beirut > conference was the last chance for the ITU to include it into the > WSIS agenda as a high priority issue. I myself did not participate in > the Beirut conference, but I was told that YJ Pak from Korea made the > relevant statement which then was reflected in the "Beirut > Declaration". If you compare the "Beirut Statenment" with the > "Paris/Geneva statements" you see a difference. Insofar - looking > backwards - it was not a surprise, that when YJ and I co-chaired the > IGC in the first WSIS phase until December 2003, we had some internal > disputes and it was not easy to reach consensus within the IGC from > the very early day ;-(((. However, the net result - seven years > later - is that we avoided to bring DNS etc. under an > intergovernmental control/oversight mechanism and we were able to > launch a multistakeholder IGF. Nice history, isn´t it? > > Do other people have more documents in their archives? Probably it > would make sense to write a short history of the IGF. Too late for > the UN GA in 2010, but probably helpful for the forthcoming deeper > IGF evalution forseen for 2011. > > Wolfgang > > > > Here is the key part of the Paris statement > > " In a broader context of ICT policy making and global governance, we > invite the WSIS to consider launching a "Global > > Information Society Observation Council" which could serve as a > meeting point for improved coordination, consultation > > and communication on ICT issues. Such a "Council" should be composed > of representatives of governments, private > > industry and civil society. It could promote the exchange of > information, experiences and best practices on issues from > > privacy to free speech on the Internet, from IPR to eCommerce, from > Ipv6 to ENUM. Listening to the good experiences > > of others is a cheap investment and could become a source of > inspiration for innovative policy development in the 21st > > Century. We will provide the WSIS secretariat with a new proposed > language for the Items 33 and 44. > > > WSIS Interesessional, Paris, July 2003 > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/plenary/internet_governance_group.pdf > > Here is another Statement I made a year later in the GFC meeting on > Multistakeholderism > > WSIS Group of the Friends of the Chair, Geneva, September 2004 > http://www.worldsummit2005.de/downloa > d_en/Speech-Geneva-2004-10-Kleinwaechter.pdf > > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Aug 1 09:40:46 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 10:40:46 -0300 Subject: [governance] History of the IGF In-Reply-To: <4C557123.6050303@cafonso.ca> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EF4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C557123.6050303@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4C55795E.6090706@cafonso.ca> Oooops, sorry, Icann meeting Rio 2003, not Rome... --c.a. On 08/01/2010 10:05 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Quite interesting recollection, Wolf. So it seems the seminal IG > proposals derive from the multilateral Beirut declaration of Feb.2003. > For me was an interesting time, as I was joining the Brazilian Internet > Steering Committee again (my first Icann meeting was the Rome one in > March 2003 incidentally) after helping to build a proposal for a > multistakeholder CGI.br to the new federal government (Lula), which was > basically accepted. At the time, I had no idea of the Beirut meeting and > got in contact with this new "universe" as my NGO also joined the WSIS > process. > > I think putting together the many historical pieces could result in an > interesting story indeed. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > On 08/01/2010 06:00 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: >> Hi Avri, Milton, Bill& Co. >> >> With regard to our Meissen discussion on the history of the IGF I >> found in my archives two statements long before Tunis which I made on >> behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus and where >> "forum function" and "multistakeholderism" were key points. In the >> Paris Statement (July 2003) we called it the "Global Information >> Society Observation Council" (GISOC). The GISOC proposal more or less >> outlined functions which later reflected in the Tunis mandate for the >> IGF. The more formal proposal from the CS was drafted by Bill and me >> on behalf of the CS Internet Governance Caucus at PrepCom3 in >> September 2003 in Geneva, long before the WGIG was created and >> proposed the launch of the IGF. >> >> The whole IG discussion within WSIS was kick started during PrepCom2 >> in June 2003 in Geneva when we had, inter alia, a Workshop "Civil >> Society and WSIS" in the official programme of PrepCom2 organized >> (and moderated) by Bertrand and me. (21 February, 10:00-13:00 - ILO >> building - Workshop lll: CIVIL SOCIETY AND WSIS. see flyer>> 27 kB >> [English ] >> ). http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory/prepcom/pc2/inf/index.html >> After the workshop we moved to the ILO rerstaurant where we discussed >> the need to establish an institutionalized platform which we called >> "CS Internet Governance Caucus" (IGC). Originally, Internet >> Governance was not a main issue in the WSIS. First priority for WSIS >> was bridging the digital divide, however the ITU was very interested >> to bring the IG debate under the WSIS umbrella as a counterplatform >> to ICANN, which as established in 1998 as an alternative to ITU >> efforts to get the control over the DNS and the A Root Server. >> >> The IG debate within WSIS was triggered by the the "Beirut >> Declaration" (February 2003), the regional ministerial conference for >> West Asia which includes the following paragraph "Securing national >> domain names: The responsibility for root directories and domain >> names should rest with a suitable international organization and >> should take multilingualism into consideration. Countries' >> top-level-domain-names and Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment >> should be the sovereign right of countries. The sovereignty of each >> nation should be protected and respected. Internet governance should >> be multilateral, democratic and transparent and should take into >> account the needs of the public and private sectors as well as those >> of the civil society." >> >> The rumor says that the ITU was not satisfied with the outcome of the >> other four regional ministerial conferences, where Internet >> Governance was sidelined. To get a "mandate" for IG, the Beirut >> conference was the last chance for the ITU to include it into the >> WSIS agenda as a high priority issue. I myself did not participate in >> the Beirut conference, but I was told that YJ Pak from Korea made the >> relevant statement which then was reflected in the "Beirut >> Declaration". If you compare the "Beirut Statenment" with the >> "Paris/Geneva statements" you see a difference. Insofar - looking >> backwards - it was not a surprise, that when YJ and I co-chaired the >> IGC in the first WSIS phase until December 2003, we had some internal >> disputes and it was not easy to reach consensus within the IGC from >> the very early day ;-(((. However, the net result - seven years >> later - is that we avoided to bring DNS etc. under an >> intergovernmental control/oversight mechanism and we were able to >> launch a multistakeholder IGF. Nice history, isn´t it? >> >> Do other people have more documents in their archives? Probably it >> would make sense to write a short history of the IGF. Too late for >> the UN GA in 2010, but probably helpful for the forthcoming deeper >> IGF evalution forseen for 2011. >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> Here is the key part of the Paris statement >> >> " In a broader context of ICT policy making and global governance, we >> invite the WSIS to consider launching a "Global >> >> Information Society Observation Council" which could serve as a >> meeting point for improved coordination, consultation >> >> and communication on ICT issues. Such a "Council" should be composed >> of representatives of governments, private >> >> industry and civil society. It could promote the exchange of >> information, experiences and best practices on issues from >> >> privacy to free speech on the Internet, from IPR to eCommerce, from >> Ipv6 to ENUM. Listening to the good experiences >> >> of others is a cheap investment and could become a source of >> inspiration for innovative policy development in the 21st >> >> Century. We will provide the WSIS secretariat with a new proposed >> language for the Items 33 and 44. >> >> >> WSIS Interesessional, Paris, July 2003 >> http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pcip/plenary/internet_governance_group.pdf >> >> Here is another Statement I made a year later in the GFC meeting on >> Multistakeholderism >> >> WSIS Group of the Friends of the Chair, Geneva, September 2004 >> http://www.worldsummit2005.de/downloa >> d_en/Speech-Geneva-2004-10-Kleinwaechter.pdf >> >> >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Aug 3 02:43:49 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 23:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] BlackBerry Service to be Suspended in UAE from October 11 In-Reply-To: References: <4c443a5d.e8e9d80a.5497.77e0@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EC5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <825221.63663.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Friends, i would like to share some information about the BlackBerry Services which is being suspended in UAE and about hundred of thousand users will affect.   CircleID News Post Reference: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100802_blackberry_service_to_be_suspended_in_uae_from_october_11/   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (TRA) announced on Sunday to ban Blackberry Services, this ban will take effect on October 11. This ban will affect hundreds of thousands of BlackBerry users who access Internet, e-mail and messaging services on their mobile handsets. The ban may be extended to foreign visitors (BlackBerry Roaming services), whereas about 100,000 passengers pass through the UAE airport daily.   BlackBerry messaging is secure but encrypted mode service which is based on BlackBerry Internet (GPRS/EDGE) to deliver text messages wirelessly using push technology of Research in Motion (RIM). Encrypted mode text messaging means that text messaging is beyond the readability of any middleware text base searching tools, if that is configured by any ISP or regulatory authorities.   Etisalat and DU both have to follow the regulations of TRA and to minimize their service.   Kuwait may also block BlackBerry services, following Saudi Arabia and UAE decision.   Comments of BlackBerry Service Users are being invited by by Gulf News on how they are affected by the decision.   Alternate Solution – Alternatively, the resident users will have to select one of following two options: 1. Either they have to use alternate (compatible) mobile phone and use BlackBerry Connect Services. 2. Or they have to leave BlackBerry Push Email Services and have to migrate (completely) on the other mobile phone devices which provide Email Synchronization Push or without Push Services. In this case, new mobile phone will be configured to access email and/or global contact database from email servers but there is no option available for data security or remote wipeout. Similarly, without Push Email Service, users will only be able to pick email message whenever they will click to synchronize. However, adopting either case, they would not be able to use BlackBerry Messenger. They have to shift either on text SMS service or onto Yahoo/Google or Live Messaging services on their mobile phones.   Investment of millions of dollar is on the risk which is related to the provisioning of BlackBerry Services and includes BlackBerry Enterprise Server Licenses, Hardware Machines, BlackBerry Phone Devices and Internet Services. However, this business will be migrated onto other email service compatible mobile phones such as Nokia, iPhone and Windows Mobile Phones. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Aug 3 05:36:10 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 02:36:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] BlackBerry Service to be Suspended in UAE from October 11 In-Reply-To: <825221.63663.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4c443a5d.e8e9d80a.5497.77e0@mx.google.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06EC5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <825221.63663.qm@web33002.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <31642.28434.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Just to update review comments that the above listed first option for alternate solution will not work, if the BlackBerry Services are completely withdrawn by the all of the Mobile Phone Operators. In this way BlackBerry Service will also be terminated which includes traffic to the RIM Service Centers. All of the current data traffic of BlackBerry is routed through RIM Service Centers. If the regulating authority declare all encapsulated/encrypted traffic as not bound, roaming users will also be badly affected.   According to CNN this decision may affect about half million users.   So, in short, only second option left behind to access email messaging service on the move and to remain in contact with the office and rest of the world.   Thanks, Imran http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100802_blackberry_service_to_be_suspended_in_uae_from_october_11/#6877   ________________________________ From: Imran Ahmed Shah To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Tue, 3 August, 2010 11:43:49 Subject: [governance] BlackBerry Service to be Suspended in UAE from October 11 Dear Friends, i would like to share some information about the BlackBerry Services which is being suspended in UAE and about hundred of thousand users will affect.   CircleID News Post Reference: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100802_blackberry_service_to_be_suspended_in_uae_from_october_11/   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Telecommunication Regulatory Authority (TRA) announced on Sunday to ban Blackberry Services, this ban will take effect on October 11. This ban will affect hundreds of thousands of BlackBerry users who access Internet, e-mail and messaging services on their mobile handsets. The ban may be extended to foreign visitors (BlackBerry Roaming services), whereas about 100,000 passengers pass through the UAE airport daily.   BlackBerry messaging is secure but encrypted mode service which is based on BlackBerry Internet (GPRS/EDGE) to deliver text messages wirelessly using push technology of Research in Motion (RIM). Encrypted mode text messaging means that text messaging is beyond the readability of any middleware text base searching tools, if that is configured by any ISP or regulatory authorities.   Etisalat and DU both have to follow the regulations of TRA and to minimize their service.   Kuwait may also block BlackBerry services, following Saudi Arabia and UAE decision.   Comments of BlackBerry Service Users are being invited by by Gulf News on how they are affected by the decision.   Alternate Solution – Alternatively, the resident users will have to select one of following two options: 1. Either they have to use alternate (compatible) mobile phone and use BlackBerry Connect Services. 2. Or they have to leave BlackBerry Push Email Services and have to migrate (completely) on the other mobile phone devices which provide Email Synchronization Push or without Push Services. In this case, new mobile phone will be configured to access email and/or global contact database from email servers but there is no option available for data security or remote wipeout. Similarly, without Push Email Service, users will only be able to pick email message whenever they will click to synchronize. However, adopting either case, they would not be able to use BlackBerry Messenger. They have to shift either on text SMS service or onto Yahoo/Google or Live Messaging services on their mobile phones.   Investment of millions of dollar is on the risk which is related to the provisioning of BlackBerry Services and includes BlackBerry Enterprise Server Licenses, Hardware Machines, BlackBerry Phone Devices and Internet Services. However, this business will be migrated onto other email service compatible mobile phones such as Nokia, iPhone and Windows Mobile Phones. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Aug 3 07:19:03 2010 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 07:19:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ICANN NomCom Chair sought Message-ID: FYI Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible. Dear all, ICANN is looking for a Chair for the Nominating Committee (NomCom). The NomCom Chair is responsible for organising the NomCom in its activities to select certain ICANN Board members and individuals who will serve in key leadership positions within ICANN’s supporting organisations (SO) and advisory committees (AC). If you are interested in this position, see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jul10-en.htm ICANN has extended the deadline for applications, which are now taken until the 30th August 2010. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ruth at lacnic.net Tue Aug 3 09:48:32 2010 From: ruth at lacnic.net (Ruth Puente) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 10:48:32 -0300 Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?LAC_Pre_IGF_Remote_participation/par?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?ticipaci=F3n_remota?= Message-ID: <4C581E30.60902@lacnic.net> Español debajo ******** Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available in all sessions. For remote participation options, please click in the following link: http://imaginar.org/igf/ More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site at: http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html NUPEF- APC -LACNIC --------------------------------- Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de seguir el evento por webcasting. Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: http://imaginar.org/igf/ Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del evento: http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html NUPEF- APC -LACNIC ================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 11:53:09 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:53:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] Remote participation III LAC prep meeting for the IGF Message-ID: Sorry for the cross-posting. The link to watch the streaming and participate remotely in the III Latin American preparatory meeting for the IGF is below. The meeting will start in some minutes. Best wishes, Marília ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adriana Rivero Date: 2010/8/3 Subject: [LACNIC/Anuncios] Pre IGF participación remota/Remote participation To: anuncios at lacnic.net English Below ===== Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de seguir el evento por webcasting. Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: http://imaginar.org/igf/ Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del evento: http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html NUPEF- APC -LACNIC ================================== Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third regional preparatory meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available in all sessions. For remote participation options, please click in the following link: http://imaginar.org/igf/ More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site at: http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html NUPEF- APC -LACNIC _______________________________________________ Anuncios mailing list Anuncios at lacnic.net https://mail.lacnic.net/mailman/listinfo/anuncios -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Tue Aug 3 12:30:31 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:30:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: <4C581E30.60902@lacnic.net> Message-ID: I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating in trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally not easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote participation as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from my home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work to accomplish this access for all! Best, Janna On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: > > > Español debajo > ******** > > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting > of the Internet Governance Forum. > > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available > in all sessions. > > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site at: > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > --------------------------------- > > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. > > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de > seguir el evento por webcasting. > > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del > evento: > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > ================================== > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 12:40:09 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:10:09 -0430 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote--now functioning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C584669.10706@paque.net> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 12:42:23 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:42:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: References: <4C581E30.60902@lacnic.net> Message-ID: Dear Janna, Thanks for your feedback. It is very important that we receive this kind of information, because the quality of the streaming is diferent for those who are in situ and for those who receive it from far away. It certainly depends on the conditions of internet traffic, backbones, possible bottlenecks and broadband in each country. It is important that you mentioned it because for us here in Quito the streaming is smooth, with some seconds of delay. The first day is also the most difficult, since problems always arise and solutions need to be found. It usually gets gradually better. Let´s hope that this will be the case. I am forwarding this message to the meeting organizers and technical team here in Quito. Please, continue giving us feedback through e-mail or Twitter (using #LACIGF). Thanks! Marília On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: > I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I > applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - > by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream > video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, > and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating > in > trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the > list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally > not > easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical > assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an > event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having > been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote > participation > as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through > live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from > my > home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work > to > accomplish this access for all! > > Best, > Janna > > On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: > > > > > > > Español debajo > > ******** > > > > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting > > of the Internet Governance Forum. > > > > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available > > in all sessions. > > > > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: > > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > > > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site > at: > > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria > > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. > > > > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de > > seguir el evento por webcasting. > > > > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de > > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: > > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > > > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del > > evento: > > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internet > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > > Associate Professor > School of Communications > Elon University > andersj at elon.edu > (336) 278-5733 (o) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Tue Aug 3 13:07:55 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:07:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Yes, I know how important feedback on live performance is! Actually, I meant to say in my previous e-mail that I was experiencing difficulties in seeing video and hearing audio later in Quito time, after the meeting was well under way. Right now ­ 1 p.m. Eastern (New York) US time - I have no live media being delivered on the Ustream window, but I can look at the archived version of the morning. What I see is a still frame that is showing PowerPoint slides ­ the first one, titled Actividades de LACNIC, was on the screen for an extended period before the video started to move on to additional slides. The slides are accompanied by scratchy audio that is occasionally breaking up to the point where you miss a few words. This is the recording named ³igf-lac 08/03/10 09:54AM.² Again, thank you SO much for your efforts! On 8/3/10 12:42 PM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: > Dear Janna, > > Thanks for your feedback. It is very important that we receive this kind of > information, because the quality of the streaming is diferent for those who > are in situ and for those who receive it from far away. It certainly depends > on the conditions of internet traffic, backbones, possible bottlenecks and > broadband in each country. It is important that you mentioned it because for > us here in Quito the streaming is smooth, with some seconds of delay. > > The first day is also the most difficult, since problems always arise and > solutions need to be found.  It usually gets gradually better. Let´s hope that > this will be the case. > > I am forwarding this message to the meeting organizers and technical team here > in Quito. > > Please, continue giving us feedback through e-mail or Twitter (using #LACIGF). > > Thanks! > > Marília > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: >> I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I >> applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - >> by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream >> video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, >> and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating in >> trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the >> list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally not >> easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical >> assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an >> event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having >> been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote participation >> as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through >> live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from my >> home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work to >> accomplish this access for all! >> >> Best, >> Janna >> >> On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: >> >>> > >>> > >>> > Español debajo >>> > ******** >>> > >>> > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting >>> > of the Internet Governance Forum. >>> > >>> > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available >>> > in all sessions. >>> > >>> > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: >>> > http://imaginar.org/igf/ >>> > >>> > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site >>> at: >>> > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >>> > >>> > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >>> > >>> > --------------------------------- >>> > >>> > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria >>> > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. >>> > >>> > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de >>> > seguir el evento por webcasting. >>> > >>> > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de >>> > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: >>> > http://imaginar.org/igf/ >>> > >>> > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del >>> > evento: >>> > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >>> > >>> > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >>> > >>> > ================================== >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>> >      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> Associate Professor >> School of Communications >> Elon University >> andersj at elon.edu >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> Associate Professor of Communications >> Director of Internet Projects >> School of Communications >> Elon University >> andersj at elon.edu >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> >> -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Aug 3 13:23:06 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 10:23:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote--now functioning In-Reply-To: <4C584669.10706@paque.net> References: <4C584669.10706@paque.net> Message-ID: <110587.18060.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi Ginger Sorry I cant make it. I'm on my way to Mexico City for a speaking engagement. Hope to hear about the highlights from you Shaila ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Janna Anderson Cc: Ruth Puente Sent: Tue, August 3, 2010 9:40:09 AM Subject: Re: [governance] LAC PreIGF Remote--now functioning Thanks for the follow-up and support, Janna. The webcast is now functioning. The meeting started at 11 a.m., with audio and the powerpoint presentation, and is now full webcast and chat. If anyone needs help, please feel free to contact me on Skype at gingerpaque. On 8/3/2010 12:00 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I >applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - >by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream >video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, >and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating in >trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the >list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally not >easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical >assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an >event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having >been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote participation >as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through >live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from my >home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work to >accomplish this access for all! > >Best, >Janna > >On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: > > >Españoldebajo >>******** >> >>Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting >>of the Internet Governance Forum. >> >>The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available >>in all sessions. >> >>For remote participation options, please click in the following link: >>http://imaginar.org/igf/ >> >>More information on the PreIGF, is available from the meeting web site at: >>http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >> >>NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >> >>--------------------------------- >> >>Hoycomienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercerareunión regional preparatoria >>delForodeGobernanzade Internet. >> >>En todaslassesioneshabráposibilidadesdeparticipaciónremota y de >>seguireleventoporwebcasting. >> >>Para participarremotamente en la reuniónpreparatoriadelForode >>Gobernanzade Internet, accedaalsiguiente link: >>http://imaginar.org/igf/ >> >>MásinformaciónsobreelPreIGF, estádisponible en elsitio web del >>evento: >>http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >> >>NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >> >>================================== >> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 13:25:29 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 13:25:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Telly says she's watching in St Kitts De On 3 August 2010 13:07, Janna Anderson wrote: > Yes, I know how important feedback on live performance is! Actually, I > meant to say in my previous e-mail that I was experiencing difficulties in > seeing video and hearing audio later in Quito time, after the meeting was > well under way. > > Right now – 1 p.m. Eastern (New York) US time - I have no live media being > delivered on the Ustream window, but I can look at the archived version of > the morning. What I see is a still frame that is showing PowerPoint slides – > the first one, titled Actividades de LACNIC, was on the screen for an > extended period before the video started to move on to additional slides. > The slides are accompanied by scratchy audio that is occasionally breaking > up to the point where you miss a few words. This is the recording named > “igf-lac 08/03/10 09:54AM.” > > Again, thank you SO much for your efforts! > > > > On 8/3/10 12:42 PM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: > > Dear Janna, > > Thanks for your feedback. It is very important that we receive this kind of > information, because the quality of the streaming is diferent for those who > are in situ and for those who receive it from far away. It certainly depends > on the conditions of internet traffic, backbones, possible bottlenecks and > broadband in each country. It is important that you mentioned it because for > us here in Quito the streaming is smooth, with some seconds of delay. > > The first day is also the most difficult, since problems always arise and > solutions need to be found. It usually gets gradually better. Let´s hope > that this will be the case. > > I am forwarding this message to the meeting organizers and technical team > here in Quito. > > Please, continue giving us feedback through e-mail or Twitter (using > #LACIGF). > > Thanks! > > Marília > > > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: > > I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I > applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - > by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream > video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my browser, > and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating > in > trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the > list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally > not > easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical > assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an > event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having > been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote > participation > as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through > live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from > my > home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work > to > accomplish this access for all! > > Best, > Janna > > On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: > > > > > > > Español debajo > > ******** > > > > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting > > of the Internet Governance Forum. > > > > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available > > in all sessions. > > > > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: > > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > > > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site > at: > > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria > > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. > > > > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de > > seguir el evento por webcasting. > > > > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de > > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: > > http://imaginar.org/igf/ > > > > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del > > evento: > > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html > > > > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC > > > > ================================== > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internet > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > > Associate Professor > School of Communications > Elon University > andersj at elon.edu > (336) 278-5733 (o) > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internet > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > > Associate Professor of Communications > Director of Internet Projects > > School of Communications > Elon University > andersj at elon.edu > (336) 278-5733 (o) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Aug 3 13:30:20 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 23:00:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] LAC Pre IGF Remote In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I am watching from India, there is some latency ( I notice it from chat ) but otherwise the audio is clear, video (slides) is ok. Congratulations Sivasubramanian M http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > Telly says she's watching in St Kitts > De > > > On 3 August 2010 13:07, Janna Anderson wrote: > >> Yes, I know how important feedback on live performance is! Actually, I >> meant to say in my previous e-mail that I was experiencing difficulties in >> seeing video and hearing audio later in Quito time, after the meeting was >> well under way. >> >> Right now – 1 p.m. Eastern (New York) US time - I have no live media >> being delivered on the Ustream window, but I can look at the archived >> version of the morning. What I see is a still frame that is showing >> PowerPoint slides – the first one, titled Actividades de LACNIC, was on the >> screen for an extended period before the video started to move on to >> additional slides. The slides are accompanied by scratchy audio that is >> occasionally breaking up to the point where you miss a few words. This is >> the recording named “igf-lac 08/03/10 09:54AM.” >> >> Again, thank you SO much for your efforts! >> >> >> >> On 8/3/10 12:42 PM, "Marilia Maciel" wrote: >> >> Dear Janna, >> >> Thanks for your feedback. It is very important that we receive this kind >> of information, because the quality of the streaming is diferent for those >> who are in situ and for those who receive it from far away. It certainly >> depends on the conditions of internet traffic, backbones, possible >> bottlenecks and broadband in each country. It is important that you >> mentioned it because for us here in Quito the streaming is smooth, with some >> seconds of delay. >> >> The first day is also the most difficult, since problems always arise and >> solutions need to be found. It usually gets gradually better. Let´s hope >> that this will be the case. >> >> I am forwarding this message to the meeting organizers and technical team >> here in Quito. >> >> Please, continue giving us feedback through e-mail or Twitter (using >> #LACIGF). >> >> Thanks! >> >> Marília >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Janna Anderson wrote: >> >> I know how difficult it is to get a live video feed to function and I >> applaud all such efforts. I have been monitoring this webcast and so far - >> by 11 a.m. Quito time, I have seen only unsuccessful attempts to stream >> video. Only an occasional change in a still frame, if I refresh my >> browser, >> and the audio comes and goes. Still I congratulate everyone participating >> in >> trying to make this information available live. I just want folks on the >> list to know that reliable livestreaming of audio and video is generally >> not >> easily accomplished at this point in time without concentrated technical >> assistance and an investment of time and money before, during and after an >> event. Don't assume that webcasts are easy to accomplish. All that having >> been said, let's be sure to keep trying to achieve live remote >> participation >> as much as possible. We know that successful remote participation through >> live video/audio CAN be done; I "attended" much of the Hyderabad IGF from >> my >> home in the US. And many thanks to Ginger Paque and others for their work >> to >> accomplish this access for all! >> >> Best, >> Janna >> >> On 8/3/10 9:48 AM, "Ruth Puente" wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Español debajo >> > ******** >> > >> > Today in Quito, Ecuador, begins the third Regional Preparatory Meeting >> > of the Internet Governance Forum. >> > >> > The meeting will be webcast and remote participation will be available >> > in all sessions. >> > >> > For remote participation options, please click in the following link: >> > http://imaginar.org/igf/ >> > >> > More information on the Pre IGF, is available from the meeting web site >> at: >> > http://www.lacnic.net/en/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >> > >> > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >> > >> > --------------------------------- >> > >> > Hoy comienza en Quito, Ecuador la tercera reunión regional preparatoria >> > del Foro de Gobernanza de Internet. >> > >> > En todas las sesiones habrá posibilidades de participación remota y de >> > seguir el evento por webcasting. >> > >> > Para participar remotamente en la reunión preparatoria del Foro de >> > Gobernanza de Internet, acceda al siguiente link: >> > http://imaginar.org/igf/ >> > >> > Más información sobre el Pre IGF, está disponible en el sitio web del >> > evento: >> > http://www.lacnic.net/sp/eventos/igfprep2010/index.html >> > >> > NUPEF- APC -LACNIC >> > >> > ================================== >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> Associate Professor >> School of Communications >> Elon University >> andersj at elon.edu >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> Janna Quitney Anderson >> Director of Imagining the Internet >> www.imaginingtheinternet.org >> >> Associate Professor of Communications >> Director of Internet Projects >> >> School of Communications >> Elon University >> andersj at elon.edu >> (336) 278-5733 (o) >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Wed Aug 4 04:30:39 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2010 10:30:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] GenderIT.org thematic bulletin Message-ID: <1280910639.2336.364.camel@anriette-laptop> **PLEASE DISSEMINATE WIDELY** (apologies for cross-posting) --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- *GENDER CENTRED: A GenderIT.org thematic bulletin* APC WNSP – GenderIT.org, 3 August 2010 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- *Privacy and violence against women* I. THOUGHTS AROUND…Claiming communication rights II. NEW ARTICLES III. FEATURED RESOURCES IV. JARGON V. WHO'S WHO VI. FEMINIST TALKS --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A new edition examines how violence against women (VAW) affects our privacy rights in the digital age. VAW survivors often experience intrusions into their privacy from their partners, spouses or the State. Moreover, privacy does not always work to women' s advantage. Family-centred approaches to privacy impose modesty and domestic isolation on women and make it hard to enforce domestic violence as a crime. So how have ICTs shifted where we see the line between what is private, and what is public? How much privacy are women comfortable to give up in order to protect themselves from abusive behaviour online? Are national laws ready to deal with the situation when women are not able to leave a violent relationship because their partner has intimate photographs or video clips of them? These are some of the questions GenderIT.org's writers examine in this edition. With this edition we also bring you a new look GenderIT.org. The new format was motivated by our efforts to engage more with GenderIT.org readers and to provide more space for networking and collaboration. We hope you like it! Please send your comments to: genderit at apcwomen.org Flavia, Katerina and Sonia from the GenderIT.org team --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- I. THOUGHTS AROUND…Claiming communication rights by Cai Yiping, the Executive Director of Isis International (Isis) “Don't upload your photographs or videos on the pages of social networks, like Facebook or MySpace, nor personal information like emaili account or telephone numbers.” IT techies advise. “I have changed my gender from female to male on skype to avoid some annoying and harassing calls and chats sometimes even popping up in the middle of night or while I am working online.” a young woman shared. “Do women need to hide their gender identities online to protect themselves and feel secure in order to use the new ICTs to express their opinions?” a woman activist asked These are among many questions and concerns raised by participants who attended the APC WNSP workshop on issue of Electronic Violence against Women i(EVAW) last April in Manila Philippines, one of the initiatives of the APC WNSP's MDG3i project Take Back the Tech! to eliminate violence against women taking place in 12 countries. The intersection between violence against women and privacyi rights is at the core of this discussion... Read the full editorial at: www.genderit.org/editorial/thoughts-around-claiming-communication-rights --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- II. NEW ARTICLES *Democratic Republic of the Congo: Two sides of the same ICT coin - breaking the silence /breaking the laws* GenderIT.org writer Mavic Cabrera-Balleza speaks with Sylvie Niombo and Francoise Mukuku, ICT activists from Congo-Brazzaville and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) respectively. They discuss various facets of the information and communication technologies and the context to which they apply in the DRC . The interviewees elaborate on how ICTs can be used to reduce incidence of violence against women and how it is also widely used in ways that aggravate the violence and violate privacy laws. They also explain why access to ICTs is critical to the DRC and how it can be used to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. www.genderit.org/articles/democratic-republic-congo-two-sides-same-ict-coin-breaking-silence-breaking-laws *Pakistan: Jehan Ara talks on censorship, and intrusion into women's space* (audio interview) GenderIT.org editor Sonia Randhawa interviews Jehan Ara, the president of the Pakistan Association of Software Houses for IT & ITES (P at SHA) and a partner in the “MDG3: Take Back The Tech! to end violence against women” project, about privacy, ICTs and violence against women, touching on censorship, and intrusion into women's space by both the State and non-state actors - such as husbands, boyfriends, fathers and family. www.genderit.org/podcast/pakistan-jehan-ara-talks-censorship-and-intrusion-womens-space-audio *South Africa: Privacy and domestic violence online and off* While women's rights activists have been at the forefront of making the private crimes that occur at home - domestic violence, marital rape - public, new technologies are making the private public in ways that disenfranchise, alienate and violate women. Esther Nasikye and Sally-Jean Shackleton explore how ICTs, privacy and domestic violence in South Africa are showing up problems in both policy and practice. www.genderit.org/articles/south-africa-privacy-and-domestic-violence-online-and *Argentina: Strategic use of ICT as a response to violence against women* Although violence against women through information and communication technologies is not yet a matter of public discussion in Argentina, the problem affects the lives of women and girls. A workshop held in Buenos Aires by APC WNSP to guide women in the strategic use of ICTs to combat violence resulted in some interesting initiatives. Concern regarding the irregular use made of cell phones, the growing circulation of pornographic images and the impact of social networks on women’s privacy are some of the points highlighted in the debates at the workshop. In connection with the workshop, Florencia Goldsman and Flavia Fascendini investigate the status of public policies aimed at promoting the use of ICTs to fight violence towards women, and delve further into some of the aspects of privacy and security. www.genderit.org/articles/argentina-strategic-use-ict-response-violence-against-women *South Africa: Pornography and the internet - justifiable protection or entrenching patriarchy?* A draft Bill proposing a ban on sexual content on the internet and cellphones submitted to the South African Department of Home Affairs in May 2010 claims to have the best interests of women and children in mind. The Bill was submitted to the Department, which oversees the Film and Publications Board, by a non-profit organisation called Justice Alliance of South Africa (JASA). What’s the issue, and will censorship work to address problematic representations of women? These are some of questions investigated by Sally-Jean Shackleton. www.genderit.org/articles/south-africa-pornography-and-internet-justifiable-protection-or-entrenching-patriarchy --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- III. FEATURED RESOURCES: 16x16 16 slides x 16 seconds draw the story of how violence against women (VAW) and ICTs link. It builds on a series of papers, providing a snapshot and baseline on the law and policy in these two areas in 12 countries across Africa, Asia and Latin America. The papers are part of the APC WNSP project 'MDG3: Take Back the Tech! to end violence against women' that connects ICTs, VAW and Millennium Development Goal Three (MDG3) in practice, policy and law in 12 countries. The 16x16 idea follows the Pecha-Kucha presentation format which is 20 x 20 - we've adapted it to 16 for the 16 days of activism against gender violence. *16x16:Malaysia* www.genderit.org/resources/16x16-malaysia *16x16:Uganda* www.genderit.org/resources/16x16-uganda *16x16:Rights-violence-technologies* www.genderit.org/resources/16x16-rights-violence-technology-joining-dots --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- IV. JARGON *Privacy* The right to privacy is the right to be free from unwanted or unauthorised intrusion, whether physically or through access to records and information. It is considered one of the hardest human rights to define, codify and protect legally, although it is guaranteed by various international instruments including the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. Women often experience intrusions into their privacy from both the State and from partners, parents or siblings, restricting and surveilling their movements both on and off line. Privacy issues may also have different contexts and consequences for women. Some speaks in this context about 'good' and 'bad' privacy. Bad or familial privacy, such as imposed modesty, chastity, and domestic isolation, can prevent exposure of spousal and child abuse. Good privacy support individual choice, autonomy and social participation. Source: www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/overview.htm, http://epic.org/privacy/gender/default.html *Violence against women* VAW, or violence against women, means any act that results in harm and disproportionately affects women. The root cause of VAW lies in unequal power relations between men and women in almost all facets of life. Some examples of VAW include domestic violence, rape and sexual harassment. The United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women defines VAW as "any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life". VAW was recognised as a violation of fundamental human rights in 1993, less than two decades ago, officially through the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women by the United Nations General Assembly. Women's movements across the world are continuously bringing to light new dimensions of VAW, such as 'trafficking in images' and other forms facilitated through the use of new communication and information technologies. However ICTs are also used for prevention of VAW and assistance to VAW survivors. Source: www.takebackthetech.net/whatstheissue See also: *Data protection* : www.genderit.org/glossary/term/984 *Freedom of information* : www.genderit.org/glossary/term/985 To understand unfamiliar ICT or gender terms visit the Jargon section: www.genderit.org/glossary --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- V. WHO'S WHO In this GenderIT.org edition we are introducing six country partners participating in the “MDG3: Take Back The Tech! to end violence against women” project. This is being implemented by the Association for Progressive Communications Women’s Networking Support Programme and it's partners in 12 countries from África, Latin América and Asia, supported by the MDG3 Fund. In the context of this project, these partners have worked on national ICT policy and advocacy, conducted national strategy meetings, localized the Take Back the Tech! campaign, organized training events called Feminist Tech Exchanges, developed issue papers on violence against women and ICTs, and distributed small grants for projects that use ICT to address or prevent violence against women. *Bytes for All* Bytes for All (B4All) is a networked space for citizens in South Asia. It experiments, highlights and organizes debate on the relevance of ICT to development activities. They believe ICTs don't replace the need for good governance or people's rights to equal opportunities, rather ICT can complement this process. It has a really active discussion forum, the Bytes for All Readers Forum http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/bytesforall_readers) that hosts numerous debates and, as they have content sharing arrangements with a number of IT based publications, this content can go offline too. Website: www.bytesforall.net *P at SHA* Pakistan Software Houses Association for IT and ITES (P at SHA) was initiated 15 years ago by a number of software houses in an attempt to create a functional trade association for the IT industry in Pakistan. Aiming to protect the rights of over 350 companies that are active members, P at SHA lobbied the government to initiate policies and create an environment that would attract more firms to join the industry. P at SHA is a platform for promoting, protecting and developing the software industry in Pakistan, and has made consistent efforts to ensure that the right policy frame works are employed for continued growth and development. Website: www.pasha.org.pk *Si Jeunesse Savait* Si Jeunesse Savait (SJS, “If Young Women Knew” in french) is a feminist group formed in 2001 and based in Kinshasa, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It has representation in three provinces of eastern Congo. SJS builds the leadership skills of young women in sexual and reproductive rights, information and communication technologies and entrepreneurship. SJS has 115 members and more than 2000 supporters around Congo. They are involved in advocacy work for a national ICT policy plan for DRC and are also active in research and studies to make sure that gender is at the center of this ICT policy plan. The group also does crosscutting advocacy with other ministries such as education, gender and justice to see a clear plan to train women and girls in ICT and to have a VAW plan that addresses violence in the manner in which it has intersectionalities with ICT. Website: www.mwasi.cd *Taller Permanente de la Mujer association* The association Taller Permanente de la Mujer is a non governmental organization dedicated to advocating the rights of women in Argentina. It began its work in 1988, addressing issues such as health, population, reproductive rights, domestic violence, work and culture. Throughout these 20 years it developed courses, seminars and workshops and published many manuals and materials. In 1995, three of the founding members of the association decided to pursue a project to highlight the fight against discrimination of women and thus was born the Women's Bookstore, one of 62 libraries in the world specializing in books and writings “by” and “for” women. The Women's Bookstore is currently a joint meeting place of many organizations, also maintains a documentation center and a publishing house with the same name. Website: http://libreriademujeres.com.ar/ *Women'sNet* Women’sNet is a feminist organisation launched in March 1998 that works to advance gender equality and justice in South Africa through the use of information and communication technologies. They provide training and facilitate content dissemination and creation that supports women, girls, and women’s and gender organisations and networks to take control of their own content and ICT use. The Women'sNet model rests on three pillars, information/content generation linked to networking and capacity building. Women'sNet undertakes research on ICTs as they relate to women and gender, and as they intersect with content development. Women'sNet is particularly interested in examining the impact that ICTs have on women's lives and their potential to meet development goals (in particular the Millennium Development Goals). Website: www.womensnet.org.za *WOUGNET* Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) is a non-governmental organization that aims to develop the use of information and communication technologies among women as tools to share information and address issues collectively. Initiated in May 2000 in Uganda by several women's organizations, WOUGNET's mission is to promote and support the use of ICT by women and women organizations in Uganda, so that they can take advantage of the opportunities presented by ICT in order to effectively address national and local problems of sustainable development. WOUGNET activities are carried out under three major program areas: Information Sharing and Networking, Technical Support and Gender and ICT Policy Advocacy. To learn more about their ICT policy advocacy work, enter here www.wougnet.org/cms/content/blogsection/13/39/ Website: www.wougnet.org To find out more about key stakeholders in the field of ICTs, visit the Who's Who in Policy's directory: www.genderit.org/whos-who --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- VI. FEMINIST TALKS *Mexico: ACTA - anyone making a fuss in your country?* Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Switzerland and the United States of America are presently negotiating a trade agreement regarding counterfeiting and the enforcement of intellectual property rights, known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Erika Smith, communications coordinator of APC WNSP, took part in the meeting organized by the Internet Society (ISOC) Mexico to find out how ACTA can affect laws or upcoming bills that attempt to address other aspects of cybercrime, such violence against women facilitated by the internet. www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/mexico-acta-anyone-making-fuss-your-country *Gender divide/gap in Pan-European Dialogue on Internet Governance* Valentina Pellizzer, OneWorld Platform for SouthEast Europe (owpsee) executive directress, participated in this year's EuroDIG – Pan-European Dialogue on Internet Governance, and has several objections to the very visible gender gap in terms of women's participation at the event, and in the IT sector in general. Her commentary was originally written for the Diplo Internet Governance Community Blog. We carry the full text of her commentary. www.genderit.org/feminist-talk/gender-dividegap-pan-european-dialogue-internet-governance To read more Feminist Talk's posts and debates visit: www.genderit.org/feminist-talk ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 7 13:25:20 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 10:25:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Seem to be Agendizing Message-ID: <913488.78970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I just made a new word, in lines of securitization and gravitas. Whether it be differing Civil Societies or Academics or Genderficationists or developing nationalists we are seeing a great trend toward promoting the angles and agendas of groups using Internet Governance as a platform. They are in fact Agendizing the concept. It has been a great while since I saw or heard someone offer -- "this would really be a good method of governing". Generally we are seeing -- "Hey Women need a voice" or "Only poverty stricken citizens need apply" or "ICANN Sucks". People are not here to forward a notion of good international governance of our, net, web, and electronic communications but rather as soldiers of some other war that requires a visit to this arena. Agendizing -- The act of making a cause,,, all about me and not the cause. -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Aug 7 14:52:31 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 14:52:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Seem to be Agendizing In-Reply-To: <913488.78970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <913488.78970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On the other hand, a "good governance" approach to the internet most easily leads to reinvention of the "wheel" in terms of rights (or the lack thereof, based on the failure to apply general principles of law to the new context of the internet, as has happened in past new vistas of technical change...) Personally, my view is that the amount of BOTH "good governance" cogitating as well as interest-based lobbying (if you will) ought to be naturally minimized by the application of pre-existing rights structures to the internet. If, as someone said months ago, we are merely in the "baby steps" of rights-assertion on the internet, then that is an admission of defeat from the start, since we can rest assured that those asserting property-based rights on the internet will not hesitate to claim them in a robust and strong fashion. Failure to meet those claims with the logical counter-claims for citizen rights creates a power imbalance that virtually guarantees the victory of property claims of right, since by definition a right will always defeat a non-right such as an interest or an equitable argument of any kind. Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. "Good governance" talk can and often does consist of the assertion of rights or of claims based on gender neutrality and other considerations lampooned below. A seemingly "special" interest can, depending on the facts, be equal to the public interest. Thus, the assertion of the "rights of the poor" is not, prima facie, a case of not arguing for good governance. On 8/7/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > I just made a new word, in lines of securitization and gravitas. Whether it > be > differing Civil Societies or Academics or Genderficationists or developing > nationalists we are seeing a great trend toward promoting the angles and > agendas > of groups using Internet Governance as a platform. They are in fact > Agendizing > the concept. It has been a great while since I saw or heard someone offer > -- > "this would really be a good method of governing". Generally we are seeing > -- > "Hey Women need a voice" or "Only poverty stricken citizens need apply" or > "ICANN Sucks". People are not here to forward a notion of good > international > governance of our, net, web, and electronic communications but rather as > soldiers of some other war that requires a visit to this arena. > > Agendizing -- The act of making a cause,,, all about me and not the cause. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Aug 7 19:44:04 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 16:44:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Seem to be Agendizing In-Reply-To: References: <913488.78970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <298452.42970.qm@web83907.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Make no Mistake Dr. Paul, I love a good rally. Sometimes I support stuff just to get the shirt or to meet up with friends. I still own the silkscreen that prints "Save the Gay baby Whales for Jesus". Nothing like a good cause. And never should we turn away because we disagree. And anyone who says that public service announcements that may break cross posting rules are bad -- are full of themselves. Social value is not intellectual it is the manifestation of someone caring. Certainly we should be cognizant of the ever encroaching globalized war against our freedoms of thought and speech and assembly and faith. But we must be mindful that causes celebre should not be run and lead by intellectual wholistic governance folk. They should be run by narrow minded zealots with soleness of purpose and a willingness to sacrifice even common sense for their cause. And likewise Internet Governance should not be swayed or pulled into directions of popularity or fad or singlemindedness. We should consider each opinion and close no doors but we should not set ourselves up in anyway as a platform for a concept that is less than universal in nature. Affirmative discrimination is only one such example. ________________________________ From: Paul Lehto To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Eric Dierker Sent: Sat, August 7, 2010 11:52:31 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Seem to be Agendizing On the other hand, a "good governance" approach to the internet most easily leads to reinvention of the "wheel" in terms of rights (or the lack thereof, based on the failure to apply general principles of law to the new context of the internet, as has happened in past new vistas of technical change...) Personally, my view is that the amount of BOTH "good governance" cogitating as well as interest-based lobbying (if you will) ought to be naturally minimized by the application of pre-existing rights structures to the internet. If, as someone said months ago, we are merely in the "baby steps" of rights-assertion on the internet, then that is an admission of defeat from the start, since we can rest assured that those asserting property-based rights on the internet will not hesitate to claim them in a robust and strong fashion. Failure to meet those claims with the logical counter-claims for citizen rights creates a power imbalance that virtually guarantees the victory of property claims of right, since by definition a right will always defeat a non-right such as an interest or an equitable argument of any kind. Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. "Good governance" talk can and often does consist of the assertion of rights or of claims based on gender neutrality and other considerations lampooned below. A seemingly "special" interest can, depending on the facts, be equal to the public interest. Thus, the assertion of the "rights of the poor" is not, prima facie, a case of not arguing for good governance. On 8/7/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > I just made a new word, in lines of securitization and gravitas. Whether it > be > differing Civil Societies or Academics or Genderficationists or developing > nationalists we are seeing a great trend toward promoting the angles and > agendas > of groups using Internet Governance as a platform. They are in fact > Agendizing > the concept. It has been a great while since I saw or heard someone offer > -- > "this would really be a good method of governing". Generally we are seeing > -- > "Hey Women need a voice" or "Only poverty stricken citizens need apply" or > "ICANN Sucks". People are not here to forward a notion of good > international > governance of our, net, web, and electronic communications but rather as > soldiers of some other war that requires a visit to this arena. > > Agendizing -- The act of making a cause,,, all about me and not the cause. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 7 23:21:02 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> References: <7F9FBA06-7EE8-4F7B-A69C-27DAAC8340A1@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C801E570@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925B6A04-51FD-425D-A29E-128E2BA67B67@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16B56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> Message-ID: <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their-own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Aug 7 23:53:25 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:53:25 +1000 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > To: , > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi All > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > something similar in Russia. > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > Parminder > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > upon. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Aug 8 02:11:39 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines for giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the benefits Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? Regards, David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > To: , > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi All > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > something similar in Russia. > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > Parminder > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > upon. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 8 03:52:48 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 09:52:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Techonomy References: <7F9FBA06-7EE8-4F7B-A69C-27DAAC8340A1@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C801E570@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925B6A04-51FD-425D-A29E-128E2BA67B67@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16B56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F12@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.cnbc.com/id/38469819/ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 8 06:32:41 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:32:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] Leipziger Teilung References: <7F9FBA06-7EE8-4F7B-A69C-27DAAC8340A1@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C801E570@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925B6A04-51FD-425D-A29E-128E2BA67B67@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16B56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F12@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F14@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipziger_Teilung ________________________________ Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Gesendet: So 08.08.2010 09:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Techonomy FYI http://www.cnbc.com/id/38469819/ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 8 06:33:49 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 12:33:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] AW: Leipziger Teilung References: <7F9FBA06-7EE8-4F7B-A69C-27DAAC8340A1@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C801E570@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <925B6A04-51FD-425D-A29E-128E2BA67B67@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D705C7E16B56@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <22669223.32762.1278407195986.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d16> <4C5E229E.3090104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F12@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F14@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F16@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Sorry this was an error ;-((( w ________________________________ Von: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Gesendet: So 08.08.2010 12:32 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Betreff: Leipziger Teilung http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leipziger_Teilung ________________________________ Von: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Gesendet: So 08.08.2010 09:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Techonomy FYI http://www.cnbc.com/id/38469819/ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 08:07:15 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 07:37:15 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C5E9DF3.4030702@gmail.com> David, Could you please bring up the issues you think are most important for discussion? I would like to read views on the most important NN issues right now. Thanks, Ginger On 8/8/2010 1:41 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To:, parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To:, >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Aug 8 08:14:04 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 05:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5E9DF3.4030702@gmail.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5E9DF3.4030702@gmail.com> Message-ID: <706791.98832.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Ginger, You could start with: - privacy - the WSJ has focussed on this this week - the net neutrality debate that has been in the news this week and additionally how this impacts on Google re FT article and others such as how the US should lead on internet governance - Blackberry issues - US cyber bill re threats to energy infrastructure. And that's just from the news I've collated in the last 3 days. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 10:07:15 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles David, Could you please bring up the issues you think are most important for discussion? I would like to read views on the most important NN issues right now. Thanks, Ginger On 8/8/2010 1:41 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines >for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To:, parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To:, >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 08:19:48 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 07:49:48 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <706791.98832.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5E9DF3.4030702@gmail.com> <706791.98832.qm@web120502.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C5EA0E4.9010904@paque.net> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 08:37:12 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:07:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To:, parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To:, >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 12:08:02 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 21:38:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Ginger Airtel, as the mobile Internet Operator, and a Nationwide 'ISP' for all mobile phones on airtel network is supposed to be neutral to facebook, Ning, LinkedIn or Orkut. When Airtel says, free download for facebook subscribers, it is promoting facebook traffic over Ning or Orkut traffic. It is an indirect way of freelaning traffic, if not fastlaning. That is not NetNeutral. I don't understand why it is difficult to see this as a NN isue. Sivasubramanian M On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Ian and Parminder, > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between > advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For > instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. > It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started > charging for it. > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like > a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious > issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive > in Vilnius. > > Best, Ginger > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >> lot >> more attention. >> >> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >> >> >> I agree - we should discuss. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: parminder >>> Reply-To:, parminder< >>> parminder at itforchange.net> >>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>> To:, >>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>> something similar in Russia. >>> >>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>> >>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>> >>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>> >>> >>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>> >>> >>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>> >>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>> upon. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Aug 8 12:47:41 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 12:47:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: "Absurd"? "trivial"? That is civil discourse? In a civil atmosphere, a post - to be taken seriously - rises above invective-slinging. It posits - instead - evidence and logic that might lead to accepting a contrary view. David On Aug 8, 2010, at 2:11 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after > airlines for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or > the benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are > never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is > common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create > free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/ > or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here > seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a > free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be > attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder > > >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , > > >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook >> free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries >> like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing >> as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a >> part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory >> authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other >> party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is >> concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to >> ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Sun Aug 8 16:03:03 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 13:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Message-ID: <882844.74625.qm@web33006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hi all, I would also like to share my comments on the subject discussion: We are also witness that Facebook Mobile application shortcut is forcefully sent to our Blackberry from mobile phone network operator on Pakistan, (using Global IT Policy and Service Book for remote configuration). Similarly, Blackberry Marketing staff (of Mobile phone network operator) called each Blackberry user groups and asked to convey this message to users of your group to visit Mobitrack website, and just on browsing the site, icon/shortcut was created in the Blackberry. Even we tried to delete the icon/application shortcut from Blackberry, it was re appeared. However, there was no compulsion on us to use this application but I believe that such applications are also used to probe the client machines as they demand maximum open security access. For example, Google Maps has nothing with your PIMs data (contacts or email) or key logging but this application will not work unless you grant open access to the application through Security Options. Regarding free Internet access (option by AirTel or any other network operator) for the compulsion of browsing the predefined contents such as Youtube or Facebook may be a sponsored scheme of compatible Mobile phones but after all the contents of such portals are already free on cost as a free services for all users. Here, it is necessary and important question that is there any "Net Neutrality" related IT policy is implemented (by the Civil Society, Internet Society or Communication Controlling Authority, Ministry of IT or in Law of Courts) in that country or Not? MAG/GAC are responsible to arrange to implement Internet policies in their Countries. May I ask that are they not answerable to reply IGF, if there is a violation of proposed NN policies are being exercised in their countries (openly) which support discrimination on the Internet Access vs Internet Contents. If no one owns the responsibility, discrimination will continue to be as long as net neutrality rules are not enforced in the Country. By they way, as I know, Chile is the first country who implemented NN policy. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ----------------------------- Urdu Internet Society Urdu Internet Council On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:08 PKT Sivasubramanian M wrote: >Dear Ginger > >Airtel, as the mobile Internet Operator, and a Nationwide 'ISP' for all >mobile phones on airtel network is supposed to be neutral to facebook, Ning, >LinkedIn or Orkut. > >When Airtel says, free download for facebook subscribers, it is promoting >facebook traffic over Ning or Orkut traffic. It is an indirect way of >freelaning traffic, if not fastlaning. > >That is not NetNeutral. I don't understand why it is difficult to see this >as a NN isue. > > >Sivasubramanian M > > > > >On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Ian and Parminder, >> >> This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between >> advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For >> instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. >> It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started >> charging for it. >> >> It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like >> a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious >> issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. >> >> Where do you see this 'line'? >> >> I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive >> in Vilnius. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >>> lot >>> more attention. >>> >>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>> >>> >>> I agree - we should discuss. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: parminder >>>> Reply-To:, parminder< >>>> parminder at itforchange.net> >>>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>>> To:, >>>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>>> something similar in Russia. >>>> >>>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>>> >>>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>>> >>>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>>> >>>> >>>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>>> >>>> >>>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>>> >>>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>>> upon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Aug 8 16:09:47 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 06:09:47 +1000 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: David, The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network neutrality. . I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product buyndling. Ian > From: David Goldstein > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > To: , Ian Peter , parminder > , > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines > for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> - >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Sun Aug 8 20:07:27 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 20:07:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those which violate the NN principle. Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing countries) and example of a violation of NN? I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up some of the grey about the issue in my mind. Thanks, Tracy On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > David, > > The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non > traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and > includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social > networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds > - > we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new > search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. > To > me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network > neutrality. . > > I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product > buyndling. > > Ian > > > > > > > From: David Goldstein > > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > > To: , Ian Peter , > parminder > > , > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after > airlines > > for > > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > > benefits > > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > > > Regards, > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Ian Peter > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a > lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: parminder > >> Reply-To: , parminder < > parminder at itforchange.net> > >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > >> To: , > >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >> > >> Hi All > >> > >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > >> something similar in Russia. > >> > >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > >> > >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > >> > >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > >> > >> > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their > >> > - > >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > >> > >> > >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > >> > >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > >> upon. > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sun Aug 8 20:08:14 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 17:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Ian, Well, given that every ISP of any size in Australia is having its own zone for unmetered content, wired and wireless, then this is an argument that is already lost. Whether it's with television stations, Tivo or any of the myriad of unmetered content deals, then it all falls into this category. And the deals aren't about giving different download access speed, unless you exceed your quota. As for bundling or customer loyalty, this is what all these deals are about - it's about the telco or any other business attempting to give themselves an edge in the provision of some forms of content. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein ; parminder ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Mon, 9 August, 2010 6:09:47 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles David, The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network neutrality. . I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product buyndling. Ian > From: David Goldstein > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > To: , Ian Peter , parminder > , > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines > for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> - >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 8 21:40:28 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 21:40:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: ,<479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE52@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, If I may interject a few comments: 1st, at a time when Google is busily cutting deals with Verizon that (according to news reports) amounts to Google's abandonment of net neutrality, it is ironic many here are still trying to define the term. 2nd, Ian when you say 'we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents;' I have 2 further questions: 1) who are 'we'? (since I don't believe many on the list had much say in the actions mentioned) 2) When was it ever easier for new entrants to compete with incumbents than in the Internet age? Lee ________________________________________ From: David Goldstein [goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 8:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian, Well, given that every ISP of any size in Australia is having its own zone for unmetered content, wired and wireless, then this is an argument that is already lost. Whether it's with television stations, Tivo or any of the myriad of unmetered content deals, then it all falls into this category. And the deals aren't about giving different download access speed, unless you exceed your quota. As for bundling or customer loyalty, this is what all these deals are about - it's about the telco or any other business attempting to give themselves an edge in the provision of some forms of content. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein ; parminder ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Mon, 9 August, 2010 6:09:47 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles David, The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network neutrality. . I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product buyndling. Ian > From: David Goldstein > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > To: , Ian Peter , parminder > , > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines > for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> - >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 8 22:21:44 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 22:21:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE52@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE52@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE54@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, To be specific: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=2&hp and the apocalyptic interpretation: 'the end of the Internet as we know it.' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html (the reality: Internet content providers have been paying to deliver better content (meaning with less jitter etc for better end user experience) to end users...basically forever, as defined in Internet years. Ever hear of Akamai? Or Digital Island? The generic term is content delivery network. But since Akamai does this over their own private (IP) network I guess we are not supposed to think about what's behind that curtain. Lee PS: The news from 2001: Digital Island operates a global private network that provides hosting, content delivery and networking to business customers looking to bypass Internet congestion. Its shares traded as high as $148 in December 1999 before crumbling along with other Internet-related stocks. Shares surged last week after the company announced a deal to host MSN's advertising. ________________________________________ From: Lee W McKnight [lmcknigh at syr.edu] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 9:40 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein; Ian Peter Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi, If I may interject a few comments: 1st, at a time when Google is busily cutting deals with Verizon that (according to news reports) amounts to Google's abandonment of net neutrality, it is ironic many here are still trying to define the term. 2nd, Ian when you say 'we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents;' I have 2 further questions: 1) who are 'we'? (since I don't believe many on the list had much say in the actions mentioned) 2) When was it ever easier for new entrants to compete with incumbents than in the Internet age? Lee ________________________________________ From: David Goldstein [goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 8:08 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian, Well, given that every ISP of any size in Australia is having its own zone for unmetered content, wired and wireless, then this is an argument that is already lost. Whether it's with television stations, Tivo or any of the myriad of unmetered content deals, then it all falls into this category. And the deals aren't about giving different download access speed, unless you exceed your quota. As for bundling or customer loyalty, this is what all these deals are about - it's about the telco or any other business attempting to give themselves an edge in the provision of some forms of content. David ----- Original Message ---- From: Ian Peter To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Goldstein ; parminder ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Mon, 9 August, 2010 6:09:47 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles David, The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network neutrality. . I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product buyndling. Ian > From: David Goldstein > Reply-To: , David Goldstein > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > To: , Ian Peter , parminder > , > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines > for > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the > benefits > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? > > Regards, > David > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Ian Peter > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To: , parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To: , >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> - >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Sun Aug 8 23:43:05 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2010 23:43:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE54@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: ,<479343.57806.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE52@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE54@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <015B5820-6326-4AFB-8C43-37BCD3D82ABF@post.harvard.edu> A Google - Verizon deal? They both deny it. Then Cringely tells all. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08cringeley.html?scp=1&sq=cringely&st=cse ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 02:40:57 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 09:40:57 +0300 Subject: OTOH.....(was Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles) Message-ID: http://manypossibilities.net/2010/05/facebook-zero-helps-ideas-multiply-at-the-bottom-of-the-pyramid/ -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 6:21 AM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of > data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand > this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in > Russia. > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand > these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be > considered a NN violation under these codes. > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing > such cases as above with the telecom regulatory  authourities, and if needed > with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > Parminder > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their-own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at > a mutually convenient  arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US > gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as > far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG > is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may > be a question that we need to ponder upon. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 9 06:51:23 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:21:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Tracey To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario towards which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we are not. First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a couple of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom carrier for this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals with a good number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net neutral' part of the Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary consumer (with sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he wants - travel, information, books, online shopping , you name it (till there is a commercial value to it). The services and options will be so abundant that one may not even realise - even if one did, certainly not appear to miss much - that all services that are available to him are those which come through (of course, non-transparent) partnership deals with a few Internet businesses fronts which pay for one's 'free internet'. The 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so abundantly providing, would become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can still call it 'Internet', and this is a very debatable question) for most, especially those with sufficient purchasing power. Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything wrong with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market power capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse off, and barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' quite formidable. On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be paid for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever more expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer in quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as well go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as fewer activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, and lesser inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity comparable to the 'Internet Mall'. This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like the 'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that counter-cultural groups, marginal political activists or representatives of small businesses sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some amusement. It would exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream 'Internet Mall', usable at times for some counter discourses, maybe for political activism as well, but largely ignored by the large majority in normal times. One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just give one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as the first two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free 'Internet Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not be able to as much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that you will be directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social responsiblity fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards serving the companies' interests. Not a great world we may be moving towards. Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in picking up this issue. Parminder On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those > which violate the NN principle. > > Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, > (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other > developing countries) and example of a violation of NN? > > I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and > clear up some of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > Thanks, > > Tracy > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > > David, > > The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non > traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download > limits and > includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or > social > networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much > lower speeds - > we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for > other new > search engines or social networking sites to compete with the > incumbents. To > me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and > network > neutrality. . > > I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product > buyndling. > > Ian > > > > > > > From: David Goldstein > > > Reply-To: >, David Goldstein > > > > > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) > > To: >, Ian Peter > >, parminder > > >, > > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going > after airlines > > for > > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. > Or the > > benefits > > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. > > > > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that > are never > > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial > issue? > > > > Regards, > > David > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Ian Peter > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; parminder > >; > > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net > > > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It > is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to > create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges > and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here > seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of > a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be > attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other > distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > >> From: parminder > > >> Reply-To: >, parminder > > > >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > >> To: >, > > > >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >> > >> Hi All > >> > >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing > Facebook free > >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 > months). I > >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > >> something similar in Russia. > >> > >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > >> > >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some > countries like > >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a > thing as > >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > >> > >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being > a part of > >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory > authourities, > >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > >> > >> > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> > - > >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > >> > >> > >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile > based > >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > >> > >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only > other party > >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is > concerned, > >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the > IGF, and > >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to > ponder > >> upon. > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Aug 9 09:22:52 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <540340.77854.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Way too complicated. This issue is not a matter of such intricacies. Do we want to regulate, via free services to smaller enterprises, the "net" so that it provides equal platforms for those who cannot afford it? This may sound crude. It may offend capitalists when laid out so clearly. It scares me, because it may just be a way of putting our priorities above another. But in the end, weighing all pros and cons -- I think we must. Implementing policy that allows and encourages growth and new is good. Slowing down the rampant stampede of huge megacorps just makes sense. Normally we do not want to say it so clearly but I believe here we must stand firm, that yes, these guys must contribute to the betterment as a whole and not just to profits. ________________________________ From: parminder To: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter ; David Goldstein ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Mon, August 9, 2010 3:51:23 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Tracey To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario towards which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we are not. First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a couple of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom carrier for this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals with a good number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net neutral' part of the Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary consumer (with sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he wants - travel, information, books, online shopping , you name it (till there is a commercial value to it). The services and options will be so abundant that one may not even realise - even if one did, certainly not appear to miss much - that all services that are available to him are those which come through (of course, non-transparent) partnership deals with a few Internet businesses fronts which pay for one's 'free internet'. The 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so abundantly providing, would become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can still call it 'Internet', and this is a very debatable question) for most, especially those with sufficient purchasing power. Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything wrong with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market power capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse off, and barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' quite formidable. On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be paid for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever more expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer in quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as well go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as fewer activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, and lesser inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity comparable to the 'Internet Mall'. This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like the 'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that counter-cultural groups, marginal political activists or representatives of small businesses sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some amusement. It would exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream 'Internet Mall', usable at times for some counter discourses, maybe for political activism as well, but largely ignored by the large majority in normal times. One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just give one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as the first two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free 'Internet Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not be able to as much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that you will be directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social responsiblity fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards serving the companies' interests. Not a great world we may be moving towards. Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in picking up this issue. Parminder On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > >I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those which >violate the NN principle. > > >Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, (available >in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing countries) and >example of a violation of NN? > > >I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up some >of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > >Thanks, > > >Tracy > > >On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >David, >> >>The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non >>traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and >>includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social >>networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - >>we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new >>search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To >>me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network >>neutrality. . >> >>I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product >>buyndling. >> >>Ian >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: David Goldstein >>> Reply-To: , David Goldstein >> >>> >> > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) >>> To: , Ian Peter , >parminder >> >>> , >> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after airlines >>> for >>> giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the >>> benefits >>> Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. >>> >>> There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never >>> addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? >>> >>> Regards, >>> David >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Ian Peter >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; >>> ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net >>> Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot >>> more attention. >>> >>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>> >>> >>> I agree - we should discuss. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> From: parminder >>>> Reply-To: , parminder >>>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>>> To: , >>>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>> >>>> Hi All >>>> >>>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>>> something similar in Russia. >>>> >>>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>>> >>>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>>> >>>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>>> >>>> >>http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their>> >>- >>>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>>> >>>> >>>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>>> >>>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>>> upon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Aug 9 16:42:44 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 06:42:44 +1000 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Here is the Google Verizon announcement http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/742/JointPolicyProposalforanOpenInter net.aspx Much will be said about this, but note that the agreement separates wireless internet as being out of scope for net neutrality (proposing different rules for tethered access). Lee, not only is there a problem with defining what net neutrality is, there now seems to be a parallel problem defining what the internet is! This wired/non wired policy divide is very problematic ­ a nice commercial distinction but very unusual for determining good public policy. From: parminder Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 16:21:23 +0530 To: "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" Cc: , Ian Peter , David Goldstein , Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Tracey To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario towards which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we are not. First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a couple of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom carrier for this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals with a good number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net neutral' part of the Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary consumer (with sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he wants - travel, information, books, online shopping , you name it (till there is a commercial value to it). The services and options will be so abundant that one may not even realise - even if one did, certainly not appear to miss much - that all services that are available to him are those which come through (of course, non-transparent) partnership deals with a few Internet businesses fronts which pay for one's 'free internet'. The 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so abundantly providing, would become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can still call it 'Internet', and this is a very debatable question) for most, especially those with sufficient purchasing power. Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything wrong with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market power capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse off, and barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' quite formidable. On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be paid for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever more expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer in quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as well go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as fewer activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, and lesser inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity comparable to the 'Internet Mall'. This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like the 'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that counter-cultural groups, marginal political activists or representatives of small businesses sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some amusement. It would exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream 'Internet Mall', usable at times for some counter discourses, maybe for political activism as well, but largely ignored by the large majority in normal times. One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just give one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as the first two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free 'Internet Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not be able to as much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that you will be directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social responsiblity fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards serving the companies' interests. Not a great world we may be moving towards. Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in picking up this issue. Parminder On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > > > I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those which > violate the NN principle. > > > > > Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, > (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing > countries) and example of a violation of NN? > > > > > I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up > some of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Tracy > > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> David, >> >> The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non >> traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and >> includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social >> networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds - >> we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other new >> search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. To >> me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network >> neutrality. . >> >> I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product >> buyndling. >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> >> >>> > From: David Goldstein >>> > Reply-To: , David Goldstein >> >>> > >> >>> > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) >>> > To: , Ian Peter , >>> parminder >> >>> > , >> >> >> >>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> > >>> > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after >>> airlines >>> > for >>> > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the >>> > benefits >>> > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. >>> > >>> > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are never >>> > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > David >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ----- Original Message ---- >>> > From: Ian Peter >>> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; >>> > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net >>> > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM >>> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> > >>> > Hi Parminder, >>> > >>> > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>> > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>> > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>> > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>> > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>> > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >>> lot >>> > more attention. >>> > >>> > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>> > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>> > >>> > >>> > I agree - we should discuss. >>> > >>> > >>> > Ian Peter >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> >> From: parminder >>>> >> Reply-To: , parminder >>>> >>>> >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>>> >> To: , >>>> >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>> >> >>>> >> Hi All >>>> >> >>>> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>>> >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>>> >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>>> >> something similar in Russia. >>>> >> >>>> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>>> >> >>>> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>>> >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>>> >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>>> >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>>> >> >>>> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>>> >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>>> >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>>> >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>>> >> >>>> >> Parminder >>>> >> >>>> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>>> >> >>>> >> >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their >> >> >> - >>>> >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>>> >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>>> >> >>>> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>>> >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>>> >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>>> >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>>> >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>>> >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>>> >> upon. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >> >>>> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >> >>>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 19:00:20 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 19:00:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Thanks Parminder ... this certainly helps. I have another question, however ... Several Mobile Telecom operators around the globe offer a "free" WAP Portal bundled into their equipment or service offerings. Currently these WAP portals offer subscribers (both post-paid and pre-paid) a myriad of free and commercial "junk" such as ringtones, wallpapers, screensavers etc. I would even go so far as to say that concepts such as the iPhone App Store, Blackberry App World, and even Ovi may be drifting on dangerous ground. Given the explanation provided below, does this (now) relatively common and, in some cases hugely popular, (see iPhone App Store) practice also violate the concept of NN? And if so ... and this is a damned rhetorical question, I am certain ... what measures can a country/telecom regulator take to curtail this practice (which seems like a very likely starting point for the scenario to which you refer below) Rgds, Tracy On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:51 AM, parminder wrote: > Tracey > > To explain what is happening I will try to build a bad case scenario > towards which we may be headed. And there is no reason to suggest that we > are not. > > First Facebook is free, then it would be Google then Twitter and then a > couple of more big Internet businesses. They of course pay the telecom > carrier for this. Meanwhile all of these big internet businesses make deals > with a good number of partners. So that finally in this 'free' 'non net > neutral' part of the Internet - lets call it the Internet Mall - an ordinary > consumer (with sufficient purchasing power) can find most of the services he > wants - travel, information, books, online shopping , you name it (till > there is a commercial value to it). The services and options will be so > abundant that one may not even realise - even if one did, certainly not > appear to miss much - that all services that are available to him are those > which come through (of course, non-transparent) partnership deals with a few > Internet businesses fronts which pay for one's 'free internet'. The > 'Internet Mall', being free and apparently so abundantly providing, would > become the principal 'Internet' space' (if we can still call it 'Internet', > and this is a very debatable question) for most, especially those with > sufficient purchasing power. > > Now, it should not be difficult to see that there is almost everything > wrong with this scheme, and everything will work towards existing market > power capturing more market power. Consumers overall will be quite worse > off, and barriers to entry for new business entrants in this 'Internet Mall' > quite formidable. > > On the other hand, the really 'public Internet' (the true Internet) will be > paid for. A couple of structural reasons will work to make it perhaps ever > more expensive, as well as poorer in quality. One, more expensive and poorer > in quality it is, less attraction it would hold for 'consumers' who could as > well go to the 'free entry' high-attraction 'Internet Mall'. Secondly, as > fewer activities remain on the public Internet increasingly lesser money, > and lesser inclination, there would be keep it going at any level of qaulity > comparable to the 'Internet Mall'. > > This shriveled-off Public Internet, if we loosely take the example of the > preceding ICT revolution, that of the printing press, will be something like > the 'print based public sphere based on those cheap pamphlets' that > counter-cultural groups, marginal political activists or representatives of > small businesses sometime push into our hands, and which we read with some > amusement. It would exist as a weak counter-space to the mainstream > 'Internet Mall', usable at times for some counter discourses, maybe for > political activism as well, but largely ignored by the large majority in > normal times. > > One can go on and on giving examples of what it could mean, but let me just > give one. If you search for 'Avian flu', you still get Wikipedia and WHO as > the first two sites from which you can get information. However, on the free > 'Internet Mall' unless Wikipedia and WHO pay up enough, which they may not > be able to as much Pfizer for instance will, the sources of information that > you will be directed to will be drug companies, or possibly corporate social > responsiblity fronts set up by them which subtly filter information towards > serving the companies' interests. > > Not a great world we may be moving towards. > > Like with Ian, it bothers me why we are not as active as we should be in > picking up this issue. > > Parminder > > On Monday 09 August 2010 05:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > > This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those > which violate the NN principle. > > Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, > (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing > countries) and example of a violation of NN? > > I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear > up some of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > Thanks, > > Tracy > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> David, >> >> The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non >> traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and >> includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social >> networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds >> - >> we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other >> new >> search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. >> To >> me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network >> neutrality. . >> >> I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product >> buyndling. >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> >> >> > From: David Goldstein >> > Reply-To: , David Goldstein >> > >> > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) >> > To: , Ian Peter , >> parminder >> > , >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> > >> > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after >> airlines >> > for >> > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the >> > benefits >> > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. >> > >> > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are >> never >> > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? >> > >> > Regards, >> > David >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: Ian Peter >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; >> > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net >> > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> > >> > Hi Parminder, >> > >> > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is >> common >> > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >> > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >> > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >> > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >> > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >> lot >> > more attention. >> > >> > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >> > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >> > >> > >> > I agree - we should discuss. >> > >> > >> > Ian Peter >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> From: parminder >> >> Reply-To: , parminder < >> parminder at itforchange.net> >> >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> >> To: , > > >> >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> >> >> Hi All >> >> >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook >> free >> >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> >> something similar in Russia. >> >> >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part >> of >> >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> >> >> >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their >> >> >> - >> >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> >> upon. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Aug 9 20:46:57 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 17:46:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [CommunityInformaticsCanada] goodbye net neutrality Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: cracin-canada-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:cracin-canada-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Steve Kurtz Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 4:32 PM To: CRACIN Canada discussion Subject: [CommunityInformaticsCanada] goodbye net neutrality FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE August 9, 2010 4:41 PM CONTACT: Free Press [1] Liz Rose, Communications Director, 202-265-1490 x 32 Jenn Ettinger, Media Coordinator, 202-265-1490 x35 Google-Verizon Pact Worse than Feared WASHINGTON - August 9 - In response to Google and Verizon's "policy framework" unveiled today, MoveOn.Org Civic Action, Credo Action, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, ColorofChange.org and Free Press, all members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, issued the following joint statement: "The Google-Verizon pact isn't just as bad as we feared - it's much worse. They are attacking the Internet while claiming to preserve it. Google users won't be fooled. "They are promising Net Neutrality only for a certain part of the Internet, one that they'll likely stop investing in. But they are also paving the way for a new 'Internet' via fiber and wireless phones where Net Neutrality will not apply and corporations can pick and choose which sites people can easily view on their phones or any other Internet device using these networks. "It would open the door to outright blocking of applications, just as Comcast did with BitTorrent, or the blocking of content, just as Verizon did with text messages from NARAL Pro-choice America. It would divide the information superhighway, creating new private fast lanes for the big players while leaving the little guy stranded on a winding dirt road. "Worse still, this pact would turn the Federal Communications Commission into a toothless watchdog, left fruitlessly chasing complaints and unable to make rules of its own. "This is not real Net Neutrality. And this pact would harm the millions of Americans who have pleaded with our leaders in Washington to defend the free and open Internet. President Obama, Congress and the FCC should reject this deal, restore the authority of the agency that's supposed to protect Internet users, and safeguard Net Neutrality once and for all." ### Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media, and universal access to communications. Learn more at www.freepress.net [2] Free Press Links: Homepage [1] Free Press (Press Center) [3] Free Press (Action Center) [4] _____ Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org URL to article: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2010/08/09-5 -- -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 00:29:29 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 07:29:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All, Here is the "deal", a proposed policy framework. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal It may be the same as the link Ian sent, but connectivity is dodgy this morning. Lots of negative reaction on huffpost (a site I can reach albeit slowly): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement". Is this the best they could get? @Tracy, any country can offer regulations that says "a bit is a bit is a bit, thou shall not treat them differently". However, since most regulators are cozy with the telcos who have never treated bits equally, this is unlikely to happen. Maybe in Scandinavia tho, one never knows! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 10 06:48:43 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:18:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 10 August 2010 09:59 AM, McTim wrote: > All, > > Here is the "deal", a proposed policy framework. > > http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal > > It may be the same as the link Ian sent, but connectivity is dodgy this morning. > > Lots of negative reaction on huffpost (a site I can reach albeit slowly): > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html > > All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN > practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. > McTim, Sorry, but I think it is you who are missing the point here. It is not about what already happened surreptitiously and now may be more open, but what is your views on what is happening, and its threat or not to the Internet you want to advocate for. Incidentally, if i remember rightly, you have said on this list that you support 'network neutrality' (NN). So the point is what is the NN you support, how important you think it is and what is it that you are ready to do to push for it. > My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point > by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the > wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency > requirement". Is this the best they could get? > I dont understand why you are so bothered about what google did vis a vis its interests and why, rather than how it affects public interest. And whether 'this is the best 'we', the public, can get'. > @Tracy, any country can offer regulations that says "a bit is a bit is > a bit, thou shall not treat them differently". However, since most > regulators are cozy with the telcos who have never treated bits > equally, this is unlikely to happen. Maybe in Scandinavia tho, one > never knows! > Again, dismissively mentioning 'what is unlikely to happen' may not the best way to go forward for an advocacy group at this kind of a juncture, which has taken upon itself to promote progressive Internet policies and 'strive to ensure an information society which better enables equal opportunity and freedom for all' (from the charter). Also, why should be rather more sanguine that our efforts can dismantle the authoritarian regimes of the world but are unlikely to have any effect on continued corporatist domination of the Internet and the world. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 08:42:46 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 08:12:46 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles (transparency) In-Reply-To: <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C614946.5050000@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Aug 10 09:19:56 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:19:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> > All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN > practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. > > My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point > by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the > wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency > requirement". Is this the best they could get? Perhaps Google expects the pro-neutrality camp to fall apart and other content providers negotiating deals with carriers as well? Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 10 09:33:49 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:33:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: In message <4C6151FC.3010401 at wzb.eu>, at 14:19:56 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Jeanette Hofmann writes > Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. The 0.facebook deal mentioned on this list earlier in the week seems to predate it. But like others, I'm puzzled why paying to get your content delivered more efficiently is such a surprise - Akamai have offered this for a decade, and it's the reason why pure content providers are members of out-of-state[1] IXPs, which they have achieved despite, in the distant past, some hard-liners saying the benefits should be restricted to reseller connectivity ISPs (and not direct to end sites). [1] State meaning their home country. -- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dmiloshevic at afilias.info Tue Aug 10 09:52:49 2010 From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:52:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4DED6273-F3DD-44FE-A32D-6E61AD893E41@afilias.info> On 10 Aug 2010, at 14:19, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN >> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >> >> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point >> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >> requirement". Is this the best they could get? > > Perhaps Google expects the pro-neutrality camp to fall apart and > other content providers negotiating deals with carriers as well? > Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. > Perhaps also an offer Google could not refuse? Desiree -- > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Tue Aug 10 09:55:40 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:55:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4DED6273-F3DD-44FE-A32D-6E61AD893E41@afilias.info> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> <4DED6273-F3DD-44FE-A32D-6E61AD893E41@afilias.info> Message-ID: <4C615A5C.3090000@wzb.eu> On 10.08.2010 14:52, Desiree Miloshevic wrote: > > On 10 Aug 2010, at 14:19, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >>> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN >>> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >>> >>> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point >>> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >>> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >>> requirement". Is this the best they could get? >> >> Perhaps Google expects the pro-neutrality camp to fall apart and other >> content providers negotiating deals with carriers as well? Perhaps >> Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. >> > > Perhaps also an offer Google could not refuse? You mean, in terms of McTim's question, this _is_ the best deal they could get? jeanette > > Desiree > -- > >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dmiloshevic at afilias.info Tue Aug 10 10:11:45 2010 From: dmiloshevic at afilias.info (Desiree Miloshevic) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 15:11:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C615A5C.3090000@wzb.eu> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> <4DED6273-F3DD-44FE-A32D-6E61AD893E41@afilias.info> <4C615A5C.3090000@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 10 Aug 2010, at 14:55, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > On 10.08.2010 14:52, Desiree Miloshevic wrote: >> >> On 10 Aug 2010, at 14:19, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>>> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been >>>> NN >>>> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >>>> >>>> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this >>>> point >>>> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >>>> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >>>> requirement". Is this the best they could get? >>> >>> Perhaps Google expects the pro-neutrality camp to fall apart and >>> other >>> content providers negotiating deals with carriers as well? Perhaps >>> Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. >>> >> >> Perhaps also an offer Google could not refuse? > > You mean, in terms of McTim's question, this _is_ the best deal they > could get? > While nobody knows exact terms of the deal, I was simply being more sceptical, meaning that they got the deal nobody else could get. Desiree -- More links and blogs: http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/742/JointPolicyProposalforanOpenInternet.aspx http://www.alfranken.com/index.php/splash/netneutrality http://chrismarsden.blogspot.com/2010/08/google-verizon-wedding-cake-is-made-of.html > jeanette >> >> Desiree >> -- >> >>> 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 >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Aug 10 11:00:48 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 11:00:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:29 AM, McTim wrote: > All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN > practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. Au contraire, the 'common carriage' regimes - those of us old enough (for which, read 'ancient') will remember - were strict and pointed. A telco - a 'carrier' - simply did not mess with the message being transmitted. This was vital to the democratic role of these 'common carrier networks.' Such common carrier rules intended, among others, to prevent intervention by powerful forces, such as governments or aggregated corporate power, to block or distort free flow of information in a polity. Does any of this ring true re global policy struggles alive to this day ... ? These traditions however hark back long decades. The Computer I, II and III inquiries in the US (beginning from 1966 with the third inquiry finally launched in 1985) were all about computers not being allowed to mess with messages as they flowed across the net. Of course in the end, packet switching made that an 'interesting' discussion ... Common carrier rules were entirely rigid in societies like the US where, at least once upon a time, the importance of free flow of information was hallowed. Of course today, price has been added as a variable, along with arguments for 'free markets.' The tradition and framework from which NN grows, however, is long and strong. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 10 11:59:50 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:59:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message , at 11:00:48 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, David Allen writes >Common carrier rules were entirely rigid in societies like the US >where, at least once upon a time, the importance of free flow of >information was hallowed. On the other hand, even US-based ISPs have acknowledged that having spammers as customers is damaging to their reputation, and it would be undersirable to be forced to carry the traffic. -- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 10 12:08:08 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:38:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4C617968.4040509@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 10 August 2010 07:03 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message <4C6151FC.3010401 at wzb.eu>, at 14:19:56 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, > Jeanette Hofmann writes > >> Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. > > The 0.facebook deal mentioned on this list earlier in the week seems > to predate it. But like others, I'm puzzled why paying to get your > content delivered more efficiently is such a surprise - Akamai have > offered this for a decade, and it's the reason why pure content > providers are members of out-of-state[1] IXPs, which they have > achieved despite, in the distant past, some hard-liners saying the > benefits should be restricted to reseller connectivity ISPs (and not > direct to end sites). > > [1] State meaning their home country. Roland, You are basically saying that you are completely puzzled about what could possibly be bothering all those who have been writing articles and blogs on this issue in the last two days. You think they simple have no point at all, whether you agree with them or not, and are simply confused? 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 10 12:19:20 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:49:20 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C617C08.5030004@itforchange.net> On Tuesday 10 August 2010 09:29 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 11:00:48 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, David Allen > writes >> Common carrier rules were entirely rigid in societies like the US >> where, at least once upon a time, the importance of free flow of >> information was hallowed. > > On the other hand, even US-based ISPs have acknowledged that having > spammers as customers is damaging to their reputation, and it would be > undersirable to be forced to carry the traffic. Roland You are entitled to your views, but let us not confuse the issues under discussions. No serious proponent of network neutrality speaks against specific measures like spam control and taking steps against possible harms to the network. I am sure you know what are the real issues of contestation here. Why dont we do a fair debate on these real issues. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 10 16:20:50 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:20:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C617C08.5030004@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C617C08.5030004@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4C617C08.5030004 at itforchange.net>, at 21:49:20 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, parminder writes >>> Common carrier rules were entirely rigid in societies like the US >>>where, at least once upon a time, the importance of free flow of >>>information was hallowed. >> >> On the other hand, even US-based ISPs have acknowledged that having >>spammers as customers is damaging to their reputation, and it would be >>undersirable to be forced to carry the traffic. > >Roland > >You are entitled to your views, but let us not confuse the issues under >discussions. No serious proponent of network neutrality speaks against >specific measures like spam control and taking steps against possible >harms to the network. I am sure you know what are the real issues of >contestation here. Why dont we do a fair debate on these real issues. As I understand, if the concept of "Common Carrier" was applied literally would not allow ISPs to deny Spammers access. But if anyone has an alternate view I'm very open to discussing it. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 10 16:45:26 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:45:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C617968.4040509@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C6151FC.3010401@wzb.eu> <4C617968.4040509@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4C617968.4040509 at itforchange.net>, at 21:38:08 on Tue, 10 Aug 2010, parminder writes >>> Perhaps Google-Verizon is just the first deal that goes public. >> >> The 0.facebook deal mentioned on this list earlier in the week seems >>to predate it. But like others, I'm puzzled why paying to get your >>content delivered more efficiently is such a surprise - Akamai have >>offered this for a decade, and it's the reason why pure content >>providers are members of out-of-state[1] IXPs, which they have >>achieved despite, in the distant past, some hard-liners saying the >>benefits should be restricted to reseller connectivity ISPs (and not >>direct to end sites). >> >> [1] State meaning their home country. > >Roland, You are basically saying that you are completely puzzled about >what could possibly be bothering all those who have been writing >articles and blogs on this issue in the last two days. You think they >simple have no point at all, whether you agree with them or not, and >are simply confused? I think many of them are in denial that ISPs in some markets have been treating traffic differently for a very long time, but mainly they don't seem to appreciate the multifarious ways that content delivery is done by shortcuts (or via the back door, ie private networks most of the way) and hasn't been predominantly end-to-end on the public Internet for ten years. -- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Aug 10 19:06:52 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 18:06:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > >> From: parminder >> Reply-To:, parminder >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> To:, >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> Hi All >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> something similar in Russia. >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> Parminder >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> upon. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 21:50:24 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:50:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM, parminder wrote: > > >> >> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN >> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >> > > McTim, Sorry, but I think it is you who are missing the point here. It is > not about what already happened surreptitiously nothing surreptitious about it, QoS came from the telco world. and now may be more open, > but what is your views on what is happening It's a political proposal, one that I don't see being enacted into law anytime soon (and then only in the USA of course). , and its threat or not to the > Internet you want to advocate for. I pretty much have the Internet I want.....I just want more folk to have it, really. Unfortunately, most of the folk who don't have it will be getting it on their mobile, which is not really a compelling experience. Despite Common Carrier obligations, which David rightly refers to, Telcos run walled garden networks, charge by the trick and want to charge for every bit that crosses their network. It's bell-heads vs net-heads, and for the record, I'm a net-head. > > Incidentally, if i remember rightly, you have said on this list that you > support 'network neutrality' (NN). So the point is what is the NN you > support, This one works for me: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html >how important you think it is On a scale of 1 to 10? Maybe about a 4. >and what is it that you are ready to > do to push for it. I like JL's view at : http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100809_google_and_verizon_offer_a_gift_to_spammers/ "It's certainly true that in most parts of the country, there's only one or two viable broadband ISPs, the phone company and the cable company, and they can't be trusted to run the network the way their users want. But the right way to address the excessive market power isn't to regulate the ISPs, it's for the FCC to put the rules back the way they were in the early 1990s, so telcos and, ideally, cable companies have to provide the underlying connections to any ISP on the same terms, so we have enough competing ISPs that if you don't like one, you can just switch to another. " for the most part however, I am happy to continue to do capacity building around how Internetworking works, and make sure that folk understand that openness is the key to the success of the Internet so far. >> >> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point >> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >> requirement".   Is this the best they could get? >> > > I dont understand why you are so bothered about what google did vis a vis > its interests and why, rather than how it affects public interest. And > whether 'this is the best 'we', the public, can get'. That would probably be something along the lines of Bob Frankston's thinking, see http://frankston.com/public/?n=as and http://frankston.com/public/?name=IntroAmbient I don't know how we get there however. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Aug 10 21:38:08 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:38:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A64@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> " All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are." I have always wondered how could so many smart persons have missed this for so long? Carlton -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:29 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Cc: parminder; Ian Peter; David Goldstein; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles All, Here is the "deal", a proposed policy framework. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal It may be the same as the link Ian sent, but connectivity is dodgy this morning. Lots of negative reaction on huffpost (a site I can reach albeit slowly): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement". Is this the best they could get? @Tracy, any country can offer regulations that says "a bit is a bit is a bit, thou shall not treat them differently". However, since most regulators are cozy with the telcos who have never treated bits equally, this is unlikely to happen. Maybe in Scandinavia tho, one never knows! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Aug 10 22:41:45 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 22:41:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A64@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> ,<39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A64@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE6A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Really all Google & Verizon have done is figured out how to get lots of pr for their joint lobbying campaign to Congress, to shape an 'open Internet' bill which is years away from passage. The FCC is boxed in by the courts, and now deserted by Google which states in black and white that it wants to have no regulatory obligations to FCC whatsoever, ever, in that future bill. And Verizon is conceding Internet access providers should do a better job disclosing their terms and conditions. So users are thrown 1 significant bone in greater emphasis on transparency. And oh yeah by releasing this joint statement Google and Verizon sucked the air out of the broader discussions between FCC and industry and other players, now abandoned by FCC. The Verizon and Google framework proposal stands, FCC is frozen, and midterm elections are coming soon. So we're done with telecoms/NN reform for 2010, see you again in 2011. Those Google (and Verizon) folks are clever indeed! Lee ________________________________________ From: SAMUELS,Carlton A [carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm] Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 9:38 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Cc: parminder; Ian Peter; David Goldstein; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles " All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are." I have always wondered how could so many smart persons have missed this for so long? Carlton -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 11:29 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google Cc: parminder; Ian Peter; David Goldstein; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles All, Here is the "deal", a proposed policy framework. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35599242/Verizon-Google-Legislative-Framework-Proposal It may be the same as the link Ian sent, but connectivity is dodgy this morning. Lots of negative reaction on huffpost (a site I can reach albeit slowly): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-green/breaking-google-goes-evil_b_676021.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-silver/google-verizon-deal-the-e_b_671617.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/google-verizon-pact-it-ge_b_676194.html All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement". Is this the best they could get? @Tracy, any country can offer regulations that says "a bit is a bit is a bit, thou shall not treat them differently". However, since most regulators are cozy with the telcos who have never treated bits equally, this is unlikely to happen. Maybe in Scandinavia tho, one never knows! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Tue Aug 10 22:57:14 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 19:57:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <285836.98187.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> And on the subject of walled gardens there is Apple's walled garden whose walls are being built higher and higher by the day... and because its Apple, almost nobody apart from a couple of US regulatory agencies seem to care... probably because Apple's PR is so good, people think because it's Apple, it must be good for you! ----- Original Message ---- From: McTim To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google" ; Ian Peter ; David Goldstein ; ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net Sent: Wed, 11 August, 2010 11:50:24 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:48 PM, parminder wrote: > > >> >> All of it misses the point that the telcos have never really been NN >> practitioners, it's just not part of who they are. >> > > McTim, Sorry, but I think it is you who are missing the point here. It is > not about what already happened surreptitiously nothing surreptitious about it, QoS came from the telco world. and now may be more open, > but what is your views on what is happening It's a political proposal, one that I don't see being enacted into law anytime soon (and then only in the USA of course). , and its threat or not to the > Internet you want to advocate for. I pretty much have the Internet I want.....I just want more folk to have it, really. Unfortunately, most of the folk who don't have it will be getting it on their mobile, which is not really a compelling experience. Despite Common Carrier obligations, which David rightly refers to, Telcos run walled garden networks, charge by the trick and want to charge for every bit that crosses their network. It's bell-heads vs net-heads, and for the record, I'm a net-head. > > Incidentally, if i remember rightly, you have said on this list that you > support 'network neutrality' (NN). So the point is what is the NN you > support, This one works for me: http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-do-we-mean-by-net-neutrality.html >how important you think it is On a scale of 1 to 10? Maybe about a 4. >and what is it that you are ready to > do to push for it. I like JL's view at : http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100809_google_and_verizon_offer_a_gift_to_spammers/ "It's certainly true that in most parts of the country, there's only one or two viable broadband ISPs, the phone company and the cable company, and they can't be trusted to run the network the way their users want. But the right way to address the excessive market power isn't to regulate the ISPs, it's for the FCC to put the rules back the way they were in the early 1990s, so telcos and, ideally, cable companies have to provide the underlying connections to any ISP on the same terms, so we have enough competing ISPs that if you don't like one, you can just switch to another. " for the most part however, I am happy to continue to do capacity building around how Internetworking works, and make sure that folk understand that openness is the key to the success of the Internet so far. >> >> My question is "why now?" What does Google have to gain at this point >> by saying " under this proposal we would not now apply most of the >> wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency >> requirement". Is this the best they could get? >> > > I dont understand why you are so bothered about what google did vis a vis > its interests and why, rather than how it affects public interest. And > whether 'this is the best 'we', the public, can get'. That would probably be something along the lines of Bob Frankston's thinking, see http://frankston.com/public/?n=as and http://frankston.com/public/?name=IntroAmbient I don't know how we get there however. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Aug 10 23:19:03 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 06:19:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <285836.98187.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> <285836.98187.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 5:57 AM, David Goldstein wrote: > And on the subject of walled gardens there is Apple's walled garden whose walls > are being built higher and higher by the day... and because its Apple, almost > nobody apart from a couple of US regulatory agencies seem to care... probably > because Apple's PR is so good, people think because it's Apple, it must be good > for you! I care, and my reaction? I don't use Apple gear. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Aug 11 00:43:40 2010 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:43:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] What Matters in Net Neutrality by Jonathan Zittrain Message-ID: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Hi all, This article by Jonathan Zittrain raises some issues for and against net neutrality. Cheers David What Matters in Net Neutrality by Jonathan Zittrain It's hard to know what to make of the Google/Verizon deal since until earlier today both companies have denied that there is one. And it's hard to argue about net neutrality because it means so many different things to different people. I've got lots of reading to do to catch up on the newly released set of principles from the companies, but in the meantime here are a few thoughts on the topic. The core question is this: when Internet Service Providers turn out to have captive audiences of subscribers—either because their customers have few if any alternatives for broadband, or because switching is complicated and cumbersome, or because ISP practices are obscure and thus hard for customers to adapt to—how far should they be allowed to leverage that captivity? http://futureoftheinternet.org/what-matters-in-net-neutrality --------- David Goldstein email: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au web: http://davidgoldstein.tel/ http://goldsteinreport.com/ phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - office/home "Every time you use fossil fuels, you're adding to the problem. Every time you forgo fossil fuels, you're being part of the solution" - Dr Tim Flannery ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 09:09:16 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:39:16 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <4C5FDDAB.3060704@itforchange.net> <4C612E8B.9010607@itforchange.net> <285836.98187.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C62A0FC.2070000@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Aug 11 09:48:47 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:18:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Carlton On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's subsequent email "*That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away."* How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of influencing it? > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more egalitarian world. You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. Parminder > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > Carlton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Ian and Parminder, > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > productive in Vilnius. > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> Hi Parminder, >> >> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot >> more attention. >> >> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >> >> >> I agree - we should discuss. >> >> >> Ian Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> From: parminder >>> Reply-To:, parminder >>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>> To:, >>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>> something similar in Russia. >>> >>> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >>> >>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >>> >>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >>> >>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>> >>> >>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >>> >>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>> upon. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 11:44:21 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 11:14:21 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C62C555.1080201@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 12:33:31 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:33:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder and everyone, I am very conscious of the fact that I am NOT a techie, so please forgive me if I am stating the obvious/making a fool of myself or both. As far as I am concerned "network neutrality" speaks to the management of the hardware, software and traffic of the internet to preserve interoperability and open equitable access > ... a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to > probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve > the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who > cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless > greatly affected by these developments. > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it > is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public > media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps > without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the > Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free > Internet based service wont go anywhere. > I was prodded into replying by what Parminder has to say quoted above. This aspect of the Internet is deeply important to me. For some time I have been alarmed at and thinking about a predatory behaviour online which I describe to myself as "webherding". Subsequently I discovered that other people call the same phenomenon "social engineering" which sounds almost respectable :-) Herding behaviour is something that man has learned to make use of to his benefit - but at the same time sharks do it, wolves do it, very much to the detriment of that which is herded. When herded, creatures lose their individuality, and the possibility of innovation, the possibility of choice. A world is created which is the diametric opposite of the type of world the Internet is sold to us as being. Somehow our perception of the world has been shifted to a focus where business ethics have become a sort of norm - if it is good business then it is also generally good and should not be questioned. Deirdre > > Parminder > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > Carlton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com ] > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Ian and Parminder, > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > productive in Vilnius. > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Hi Parminder, > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > more attention. > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > Reply-To: , parminder > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > To: , > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Hi All > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > something similar in Russia. > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > Parminder > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > upon. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Aug 11 16:00:02 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:00:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Question References: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Does somebody havsthe e-mail address from Anriette Esterhuysen? Thanks 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at nic.br Wed Aug 11 16:08:02 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 17:08:02 -0300 Subject: [governance] Question In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C630322.7000905@nic.br> Anriette Esterhuysen ============================================ On 11/8/2010 17:00, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Does somebody havsthe e-mail address from Anriette Esterhuysen? > > Thanks > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Wed Aug 11 16:56:31 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:56:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <7118146EDCCE46F19DC4D5FBA4CDA9F9@MTBJ> anriette at apc.org ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Président de la CIC Fédération Mondiale des Organisations d'Ingénieurs Tél : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Envoyé : mercredi 11 août 2010 21:00 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] Question Does somebody havsthe e-mail address from Anriette Esterhuysen? Thanks 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Wed Aug 11 16:57:22 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 21:57:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Question In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <870100.31456.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F31@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <0F9F5BBE7E7844CD8903DAA8A5DC0220@MTBJ> anriette at apc.org ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ -----Message d'origine----- De : "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Envoyé : mercredi 11 août 2010 21:00 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : [governance] Question Does somebody havsthe e-mail address from Anriette Esterhuysen? Thanks 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Aug 11 20:40:25 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 06:10:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <967847.67205.qm@web120508.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Tracy, On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:37 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google < tracyhackshaw at gmail.com> wrote: > This is a very interesting discussion thread indeed. > > I am confused though about some of the examples being offered as those > which violate the NN principle. > > Is http://blog.facebook.com/blog.php?post=391295167130, for example, > (available in Trinidad & Tobago, the Caribbean, and many other developing > countries) and example of a violation of NN? > I see this as an issue that is even larger than that of the propriety of the commercial positions of Google and Verizon. This is an issue that makes it obvious that mobile (phone) Internet is far different from conventional Internet. It shows that certain values that are inherent in 'conventional' Internet are bound to be missing in mobile Internet 1. 'Conventional' Internet does not *definitely* identify the end-user or the terminal accessing the Internet. The Network provided Internet access to the end-user without requirements such as precise identification of user and identification of the terminal at the user's end (machine number or processor number or a set of names and numbers that precisely identified the user's terminal. This is a factor that significantly contributed to the practice of non-discrimination, in the sense that it was difficult to discriminate without absolute certainty of the person at the user's end. That changes totally and completely in mobile Internet. The Phone Company which doubles as the ISP has completely knowledge of the user's terminal, which is identified by the IMEI number, the connection is identified by the sim number and the phone number. An IMEI number is required to make the 'terminal' eligible for connectivity, it identifies the 'terminal' in no uncertain terms and the sim card and number is linked to the user which identifies the user. The user at the end is highly visible to the network operator, so it becomes perfectly possible for the network operator to discriminate between users, if the operator chooses to. 2. Conventional Internet does not seek to know what is going through the pipelines, but mobile Internet knows with absolute certainty. In the 0.facebook issue, the fundamental issue is that the mobile Internet Services provider who is the phone company KNOWS (worse, monitors) that the user is accessing facebook. That is not supposed to be known, not supposed to be noticed. In the true principles of Internet, the mobile ISP is supposed to be 'stupid' and is not supposed to know what is going through the connection - whether it is voice or data, let alone whether it is facebook or LinkedIn. But the phone company knows everything. So it becomes possible to free-lane or fast-lane traffic. The user is in a glass house while accessing Internet from a mobile phone. Sivasubramanian M > I am hopeful that someone can comprehensively respond to this and clear up > some of the grey about the issue in my mind. > > > Thanks, > > Tracy > > > On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >> David, >> >> The point you are missing is that when a carrier or ISP creates a non >> traffic shaped free zone for users who have exceeded download limits and >> includes, say, Google and Facebook and no other search engine or social >> networking site - meaning all other sites are subject to much lower speeds >> - >> we have created an uneven playing field where it is difficult for other >> new >> search engines or social networking sites to compete with the incumbents. >> To >> me this is is a serious issue for innovation, free markets, and network >> neutrality. . >> >> I don't see how this is similar to customer loyalty systems or product >> buyndling. >> >> Ian >> >> >> >> >> >> > From: David Goldstein >> > Reply-To: , David Goldstein >> > >> > Date: Sat, 7 Aug 2010 23:11:39 -0700 (PDT) >> > To: , Ian Peter , >> parminder >> > , >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> > >> > I can only say this is a bit absurd Ian. Next you'll be going after >> airlines >> > for >> > giving their frequent flyers benefits over non-frequent flyers. Or the >> > benefits >> > Telstra gives for customers who bundle their services. >> > >> > There are many other internet issues that I see every week that are >> never >> > addressed in this group, and you want to focus on this trivial issue? >> > >> > Regards, >> > David >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ---- >> > From: Ian Peter >> > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder ; >> > ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net >> > Sent: Sun, 8 August, 2010 1:53:25 PM >> > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> > >> > Hi Parminder, >> > >> > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is >> common >> > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >> > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >> > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >> > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >> > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a >> lot >> > more attention. >> > >> > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >> > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >> > >> > >> > I agree - we should discuss. >> > >> > >> > Ian Peter >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> From: parminder >> >> Reply-To: , parminder < >> parminder at itforchange.net> >> >> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >> >> To: , > > >> >> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >> >> >> >> Hi All >> >> >> >> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook >> free >> >> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >> >> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >> >> something similar in Russia. >> >> >> >> I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). >> >> >> >> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >> >> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >> >> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >> >> above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. >> >> >> >> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part >> of >> >> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >> >> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >> >> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >> >> >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at >> >> >> >> >> >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their >> >> >> - >> >> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >> >> >> >> >> >> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >> >> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. >> >> >> >> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >> >> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >> >> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >> >> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >> >> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >> >> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >> >> upon. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Thu Aug 12 14:21:09 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 13:21:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Parminder: I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly misread my misgivings. To report what is - and recognize the nature of things - can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green's Order that broke up Ma Bell. And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and show preference in very business-like practical ways for those customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for me. We - civil society - are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One of them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said "I don't want to belong to any club that will have me as a member". The sentiment expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you'll find me. Ginger's response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!] My position is that this 'knowing' is what fuels the big picture response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency trumps. Carlton From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Carlton On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of influencing it? The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more egalitarian world. You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. Parminder Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To:, parminder Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 To:, Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Aug 13 06:35:02 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:35:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [kictanet] Fw: [i-network] East African Internet Governance Forum-updates In-Reply-To: <478516.4426.qm@web57801.mail.re3.yahoo.com> References: <478516.4426.qm@web57801.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Walubengo J Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 00:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [kictanet] Fw: [i-network] East African Internet Governance Forum-updates To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions below the updates from the East African Internet Governance Forum in Uganda. walu. Alice: any major\key decisions coming out of the Kampala meeting? --- On Wed, 8/11/10, I-Network Secretariat Eunice Namirembe wrote: From: I-Network Secretariat Eunice Namirembe Subject: [i-network] East African Internet Governance Forum To: "I-Network Uganda" Date: Wednesday, August 11, 2010, 6:38 PM Dear Members, Like most of you may know already, The East African Internet Governance Forum is taking place now. You are invited to follow proceedings on Twitter @EA_IGF, read updates on the blog http://www.eaigf-uganda.blogspot.com/ or follow participants updates on facebook when you search East African Internet Governance Forum and be part of the event. You can also access day one presentations on the EAIGF website using this link http://www.eaigf.or.ke/eaigf/eaigf/2010-eaigf-presentation.html. Kind regards Eunice ________________________ Visit the I-Network website - www.i-network.or.ug Follow I-Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/inetwork The I-Network Dgroup is a platform for ICT Knowledge Sharing --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit [web site]( http://d2.dgroups.org/iicd/i-network/ ) Click [here]( mailto:leave.i-network at dgroups.org ) to unsubscribe The email is intended only for the recipients. The owners of the Dgroups cannot be held responsible for the contents of the email 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 13 09:33:29 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:03:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> Hi All The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not what that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my hopes with political governance to ensure public interest prevails rather than depend on deals between companies which are, and expected to be, based on private interests. (Though the danger is that this deal could be a trail balloon by the US establishment, which even though it knows it is against people's interest vis a vis that of the big corporates, may still go with a deal that doesnt protect network neutrality because overall geo-economic interests of developed countries lie with sticking to backing these global corporates. This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be development agenda.) Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic interest and private interest. Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. As Carlton notes in his email Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems built to give political respectability to private interests. Parminder On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Parminder: > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > misread my misgivings. To report what is -- and recognize the nature > of things -- can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they > see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to > recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green's Order that broke up Ma Bell. > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for me. > > We -- civil society -- are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition. > Grouch Marx was alleged to have said "I don't want to belong to any > club that will have me as a member". The sentiment expressed has a > larger embrace and this is where you'll find me. Ginger's response to > Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple > products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public > disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of > its public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was > fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!] > > My position is that this 'knowing' is what fuels the big picture > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > trumps. > > Carlton > > *From:* parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Carlton > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > subsequent email "*That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away."* > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > of influencing it? > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and > browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling > would do in the network or Internet space. > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses > of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do > anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily > new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be > more bothered about the structural implications of vertical > integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for > a more egalitarian world. > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and > therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, > is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs > to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that > serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of > those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are > nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, > it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is > a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising > citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and > essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, > discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go > anywhere. > > Parminder > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > Carlton > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > To:governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ian Peter > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Ian and Parminder, > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > productive in Vilnius. > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To: , parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To: , > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email:http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 10:10:02 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:40:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C65523A.1070904@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 10:28:20 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:28:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62B6B2@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1281709700.1779.1531.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear Parminder and all I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: Governments: - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. Regulators: - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access - some in the pocket of operators - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure Businesses - large mobile: - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: - many would like to get into content - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. Anriette > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > development agenda.) > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > interest and private interest. > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > this difference. > > As Carlton notes in his email > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > Parminder > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Parminder: > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > for me. > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > trumps. > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > developments. > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To:, parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To:, > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 10:48:12 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:48:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights event at IGF Message-ID: <1281710892.1779.1613.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear IGC members Please pass this invitation on, and you are of course all invited. Best Anriette ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leading up to the 2010 IGF, The Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Global Partners, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) and the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles are hosting, on 13 September 2010 in Vilnius, an event on: "Internet governance and human rights: strategies and collaboration for empowerment" Internet governance has significant impact on human rights. This is reflected by the inclusion of human rights considerations in the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda, which gave the IGF its mandate. However, human rights discussions have not featured prominently at the IGF. What discussions there have been tended to focus on civil and political rights without also sufficiently considering how the internet relates to cultural, social and economic rights. The indivisibility of rights has not received the attention it requires. The Internet governance and human rights communities work in different spaces and rarely have the opportunity to interact. The presence of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank la Rue at the 2009 IGF and again at the 2010 IGF shows that this is beginning to change. The 2010 IGF presents a valuable opportunity to place human rights more firmly on the Internet governance map and to identify opportunities for collaboration with mainstream human rights communities. With an increasing emphasis on the development agenda in the IGF it is also a good opportunity to look at the links between human rights, development and the Internet. Join the conversation with human rights, internet governance and development activists as we review pressing IG issues such as access, diversity, equality, freedom, openness and development with a view to strengthening the human rights agenda at the IGF. Sept 13, 2010 2-5pm Main IGF venue, Vilnius Room to be confirmed More concretely, we hope to: * continue building effective collaborations promoting human rights in Internet governance, and, * identify appropriate spaces for intervention in the 2010 IGF. For more information, or to confirm your participation, please contact: Chad Lubelsky (chad at apc.org) -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 11:06:54 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:06:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Human Rights event at IGF In-Reply-To: <1281710892.1779.1613.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <1281710892.1779.1613.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <1281712014.1779.1717.camel@anriette-laptop> Our apology to the Giganet people. We realise we will clash with part of your event. There was just no other option - Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 16:48 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear IGC members > > Please pass this invitation on, and you are of course all invited. > > Best > > Anriette > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Leading up to the 2010 IGF, The Association for Progressive > Communications (APC), Global Partners, the Centre for Internet and > Society (CIS) and the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and > Principles are hosting, on 13 September 2010 in Vilnius, an event on: > > "Internet governance and human rights: strategies and collaboration for > empowerment" > > Internet governance has significant impact on human rights. This is > reflected by the inclusion of human rights considerations in the Geneva > Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda, which gave the IGF its > mandate. However, human rights discussions have not featured prominently > at the IGF. What discussions there have been tended to focus on civil > and political rights without also sufficiently considering how the > internet relates to cultural, social and economic rights. The > indivisibility of rights has not received the attention it requires. > > The Internet governance and human rights communities work in > different spaces and rarely have the opportunity to interact. The > presence of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, Frank la > Rue at the 2009 IGF and again at the 2010 IGF shows that this is > beginning to change. The 2010 IGF presents a valuable opportunity to > place human rights more firmly on the Internet governance map and to > identify opportunities for collaboration with mainstream human rights > communities. > > With an increasing emphasis on the development agenda in the IGF it > is also a good opportunity to look at the links between human > rights, development and the Internet. > > Join the conversation with human rights, internet governance > and development activists as we review pressing IG issues such as > access, diversity, equality, freedom, openness and development with a > view to strengthening the human rights agenda at the IGF. > > Sept 13, 2010 > 2-5pm > Main IGF venue, Vilnius > Room to be confirmed > > More concretely, we hope to: > > * continue building effective collaborations promoting human > rights in Internet governance, and, > * identify appropriate spaces for intervention in the 2010 IGF. > > For more information, or to confirm your participation, please contact: > Chad Lubelsky (chad at apc.org) -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 12:07:24 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 09:07:24 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <1281709700.1779.1531.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Parminder and all I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: Governments: - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. Regulators: - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access - some in the pocket of operators - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure Businesses - large mobile: - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: - many would like to get into content - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. Anriette > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > development agenda.) > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > interest and private interest. > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > this difference. > > As Carlton notes in his email > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > Parminder > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Parminder: > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > for me. > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > trumps. > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > developments. > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To:, parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To:, > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these > > codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Fri Aug 13 12:18:19 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:18:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACE89@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I don't often cross-post, but this email below from Richard Shockey on Farber's list may be a helpful small step towards clarifying what different folks are saying - and aligning that with the tech reality of Internet operations. Bottom line for me remains we are early in the game of defining public policy for all-IP nets. For US the Google-Verizon thing is just a clever shot at setting the agenda for when those discussions amp up, in a year or 2. Cuz right now we're just talking and nothing imminent is happening. Because...well see below. Lee ________________________________________ From: David Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 4:57 AM To: ip Subject: [IP] Re: VZ Google Announcementworth reading -- Begin forwarded message: From: "Waz, Joe" > Date: August 12, 2010 9:25:36 PM EDT To: >, >, > Subject: Re: [IP] VZ Google Announcementworth reading -- Richard's right - today, most cable voice service is IP-based - that's how Comcast entered the voice business ________________________________ From: George Ou > To: dave at farber.net >; richard at shockey.us >; Waz, Joe Sent: Thu Aug 12 20:42:52 2010 Subject: RE: [IP] VZ Google Announcementworth reading -- Richard, This was a superbly stated comment and I enjoyed reading it. I just have one minor issue which is your comment that cable telephony runs on IP. I could be wrong, but I don’t think cable telephony uses IP. Joe? George From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:35 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] VZ Google Announcementworth reading -- Begin forwarded message: From: "Richard Shockey" > Date: August 11, 2010 5:48:31 PM EDT To: > Subject: RE: [IP] re VZ Google Announcement For IP please .. With all due respect to Link Hoewing and Richard Whitt of Google, who probably crafted this statement, it has clearly created more confusion and FUD that before it was issued. Its regrettable. What is needed here is some clarity on what the various actors want to achieve and how the public interest is to be served. That said I’m personally much more sympathetic to the general principal of packet discrimination in IP networks that one might imagine. Part of the problem in the discussion of Net Neutrality is the lack of any real Internet Engineering input. This is a frustration that I know our list nanny and Gerry Faulhaber have felt for some time ..they are not alone. This is also a problem in the FCC and certainly among the DuPont Circle “public interest” groups such as FP and PK. No one ask guys like me what people are really trying to do with the Internet. As someone who has spent the last 15 years as a working participant in the Internet Engineering Task Force ( which defines the protocols that ARE the Internet ) and a chair of several of its working groups let me point out a number of salient facts. First .. packet discrimination or application specific packet discrimination of IP networks is a integral part of the Internet Protocol suite and has been since nearly its inception. First was Differentiated Services or difserv RFC 2474 RFC 2475 etal or wikipedia for details. Recently the IETF and our cousins at the ITU has spent huge amounts of brain power defining the architecture of MPLS or Multi Protocol Label Switching for IP which is rapidly ( along with Ethernet) becoming the core of global carrier networks. Look it up. This is a good thing. IP has won now us poor engineering grunts have to make it work. Yes all IP datagrams are created equal but some packets MUST be made more equal than others. Brett Glass noted this earlier but the obvious application is VoIP. In case you had not heard classic Class 5 analog POTS is dying and I’m deeply sympathetic to those operators with Nortel DMS 250 and 500 switches who are trying to figure out what to do in a era of constrained operator CAPEX. Oh yes ..engineers at VZ and T and others live in mortal fear of the EOL letter ( End of Life) for the AL 5ESS switches as well. FCC’s own stats indicate that 18 percent of PSTN traffic is probably now running on IP networks, but that was based on 2008 data. IMHO its probably more than 35% now and once T and VZ roll out their LTE/ IMS networks that crosses the 50% mark. Its nearly 100% among Cable Operators. Yes its SIP .. RFC 3761. The difference is that this is not Vonage or Skype it’s a managed IP service. With respect, Chairman Seidenberg needs a better PR advisor. His comment on that he wants to offer 3D Metropolitan opera services was nearly as ridiculous as the EBIDA envy expressed by Ed (my pipes) Whitacre about Google, which started this whole mess in the first place. I would have had much more respect for him if he actually said, “Look lots of folks want to pay us good money to differentiate their IP traffic .. like Telepresence, public safety, medical monitoring. We need the technical capability as well as the regulatory clarity to offer those services” “ Oh BTW I need to defend my 6% dividend thank you very much.” That I would understand. Inherent in the Google VZ statement is a definition of consumer broadband Internet access that says that non discrimination in landline environments means that consumer broadband internet access is a “best efforts service” and no more. Well OK say so. Frankly that is not the reality of the network as it exists, nor do I believe that is what consumers or businesses actually want. I want my voice and point to point video transmissions to be “managed”. I’m happy to pay for that. Point to Point video is, perhaps the last real application the carriers can monetize if they would wake up to the opportunity. Just look at what Apple has done and will do with FaceTime. Wireless, I understand is different. That is the key here. But defining technically or in policy what is the “consumer broadband internet access service” is about as easy as defining what “reasonable network management” or a “telecommunications vs information service”. I don’t envy them but I do wish them well. That said .. I am a fan of the only reasonable way to guarantee universal broadband access to all Americans ..that is TURN OFF ANALOG POTS. That does not say kill off the PSTN .. that is a appropriate regulatory construct especially with the core voice service using E.164 addressing. It’s just there is one network now and its IP. We had a successful transition with analog to digital television there is no reason we could not do this for IP at the access side. IP now IP everywhere. Running parallel networks, analog POTS/SS7 and IP access is not a good thing from the network architecture and OPEX side. The PSTN as a mandated service using E.164 numbers that MUST remain, but that is a “managed service” with clear packet discrimination. IMHO the real all IP network from a CAPEX/ OPEX perspective it would actually make financial sense for our Copperhead friends ( I no longer like calling them Bellheads) over the long term. ATT has argued that case at the FCC. http://gigaom.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/da-09-2517a11.pdf http://blog.quintarelli.it/files/att.pdf From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 2:26 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] re VZ Google Announcement Begin forwarded message: From: "Hoewing, C. L." > Date: August 10, 2010 4:50:12 AM PDT To: dave at farber.net Subject: RE: [IP] re VZ Google Announcement Dave: This is wrong. First, a broadband provider has to offer an broadband Internet access service to consumers in order to offer additional services in the first place. These services had to comply with the nondiscrimination principles. This also helps ensure that such open Internet connections will remain available. Second, the additional services cannot be offered or promoted as if they are broadband Internet access services. Third, if anything we might do in offering or promoting any additional services appears to the FCC to be undermining broadband Internet access services, it can issue an emergency report to Congress detailing its concerns and laying out recommendations. I think all of this provides a balance that allows for innovation to take place while promoting broadband Internet access services at the same time. After all, if the FCC issued such an emergency report, it would certainly create a lot of pressure very quickly on a provider to change its practices. LINK Link Hoewing Vice President Internet and Technology Policy Verizon 1300 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-515-2420 ________________________________ From: Dave Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: Monday, August 09, 2010 9:05 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] re VZ Google Announcement Begin forwarded message: From: Jason Calacanis > Date: August 9, 2010 1:40:04 PM PDT To: dave at farber.net Cc: ip > Subject: Re: [IP] VZ Google Announcement Dave, Please tell me if I'm reading Section 5 correctly: it states, basically, that net neutrality applies to services that have been introduced to customers already, but new services can break net neutrality rules? So, since YouTube already exists, it can't be run across a faster Verizon Network that Google pays for the rights to access? What if Google launches YouTube Pro--a completely new service with new offerings. Is that allowed? What if they make a new service called "Gideo" (a new Google Video), that is available in HD only in FIOS homes. Gideo could pay for priority over Verizon's new network called FIOS2? Is this why Verizon stopped investing in Fios? To create a new standard outside the NN world? hmmm..... confused. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/joint-policy-proposal-for-open-internet.html Fifth, we want the broadband infrastructure to be a platform for innovation. Therefore, our proposal would allow broadband providers to offer additional, differentiated online services, in addition to the Internet access and video services (such as Verizon's FIOS TV) offered today. This means that broadband providers can work with other players to develop new services. It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options. Our proposal also includes safeguards to ensure that such online services must be distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services and are not designed to circumvent the rules. The FCC would also monitor the development of these services to make sure they don’t interfere with the continued development of Internet access services. On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Dave Farber > wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: "Hoewing, C. L." > Date: August 9, 2010 11:31:59 AM PDT To: David Farber > Subject: FW: URGENT - VZ Google Announcement Dave: For IP. LINK http://policyblog.verizon.com/BlogPost/742/JointPolicyProposalforanOpenInternet.aspx Link Hoewing Vice President Internet and Technology Policy Verizon 1300 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-515-2420 Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] -- --------------------- Jason McCabe Calacanis CEO, http://www.Mahalo.com Office: 310-593-6134 / Mobile: 310-456-4900 Blog: http://www.calacanis.com Mailing list: http://bit.ly/jasonslist Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/jason AOL IM/Skype: jasoncalacanis Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ________________________________________ From: Michael Gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 12:07 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Anriette Esterhuysen'; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Parminder and all I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: Governments: - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. Regulators: - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access - some in the pocket of operators - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure Businesses - large mobile: - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: - many would like to get into content - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. Anriette > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > development agenda.) > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > interest and private interest. > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > this difference. > > As Carlton notes in his email > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > Parminder > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Parminder: > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > for me. > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > trumps. > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > developments. > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To:, parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To:, > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these > > codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 13 12:27:14 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:57:14 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C657262.4060704@itforchange.net> Building on Micheal's post below, Anriette please note that i spoke about multistakeholderism as a policy making form (or forum) and not a discussion forum to quote from my email "The principal> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form," There are many on this list who uphold multistakeholderism as a policy-making forum. That is what I am rebutting. Also, when we only speak of policy discussion forums like with the IGF without talking of the policy making forum into which this discussion must feed, which has to be a public interest based democratic forum, expressly excluding private interests with conflict of interest wrt policy matters being considered, we are promoting both a policy deficit and a democratic deficit. The problem is when policy discussions take the place of policy making, or still worse, as Micheal says, ' the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself." This unfortunately is largely the situation of much of global IG today. Parminder On Friday 13 August 2010 09:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > Dear Parminder and all > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > Governments: > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. > > Regulators: > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > - some in the pocket of operators > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > Businesses - large mobile: > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > - many would like to get into content > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. > > Anriette > > >> This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a >> developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be >> development agenda.) >> >> Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal >> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business >> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly >> understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic >> interest and private interest. >> >> Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed >> to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing >> wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. >> That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. >> >> On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest >> players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems >> about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However >> the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) >> and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always >> been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global >> society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish >> this difference. >> >> As Carlton notes in his email >> >> Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications >> of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. >> Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of >> money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is >> quixotic to pretend otherwise. >> >> It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working >> for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's >> singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest >> representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems >> built to give political respectability to private interests. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >> >>> Parminder: >>> >>> I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly >>> misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature >>> of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober >>> commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what >>> they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come >>> to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, >>> priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend >>> otherwise. >>> >>> >>> >>> I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre >>> Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. >>> And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that >>> telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and >>> show preference in very business-like practical ways for those >>> customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the >>> light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical >>> portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally >>> sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, >>> volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a >>> marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, >>> for me. >>> >>> >>> >>> We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One >>> of them is to make personal statements that undergird our >>> opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to >>> belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment >>> expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. >>> Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; >>> I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is >>> stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation >>> is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than >>> politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of >>> BP in recent past!] >>> >>> >>> >>> My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture >>> response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of >>> losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of >>> genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency >>> trumps. >>> >>> >>> >>> Carlton >>> >>> >>> >>> From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Carlton >>> >>> On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>> >>> Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue >>> for civil society is transparency. >>> >>> >>> No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's >>> subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and >>> open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." >>> >>> How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way >>> of influencing it? >>> >>> >>> >>> The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes >>> and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. >>> >>> Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS >>> Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. >>> >>> >>> Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine >>> Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this >>> when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS >>> and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and >>> bundling would do in the network or Internet space. >>> >>> However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible >>> excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can >>> do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the >>> daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the >>> Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of >>> vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the >>> Internet for a more egalitarian world. >>> >>> You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its >>> i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that >>> the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, >>> and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my >>> view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective >>> which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with >>> responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them >>> strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums >>> but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these >>> developments. >>> >>> In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market >>> place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social >>> interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a >>> space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on >>> these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we >>> take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet >>> based service wont go anywhere. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. >>> >>> Carlton >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Ian and Parminder, >>> >>> This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is >>> between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which >>> David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first >>> available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to >>> get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. >>> >>> It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds >>> more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts >>> customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not >>> marketing. >>> >>> Where do you see this 'line'? >>> >>> I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more >>> productive in Vilnius. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>> >>> Hi Parminder, >>> >>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot >>> more attention. >>> >>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>> >>> >>> I agree - we should discuss. >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: parminder >>> Reply-To:, parminder >>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>> To:, >>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> Hi All >>> >>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>> something similar in Russia. >>> >>> I consider this as an outright violation of net >>> neutrality (NN). >>> >>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>> above will be considered a NN violation under these >>> codes. >>> >>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US >>> at >>> >>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>> >>> >>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than >>> wired Internet. >>> >>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>> upon. >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 12:44:47 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 18:44:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1281717887.1779.2337.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear Michael I think the the 'democratic deficit' results less from weaknesses in the processes (although these are real) than from weaknesses at the level of grassroots organisation. I would include small, medium, local business in grassroots in this context as much as I would include civil society. If we don't have strong organisations that understand 1) how to understand and promote the public interest, or even 2) how to understand and promote their own interest, policy making processes end up being controlled by the most powerful. Sometimes they are government, sometimes large companies, often, in countries where the public sector lacks capacity and political will, both together. We have to fix this by working from the bottom up... in all sectors. A great example in South Africa at the moment is a group called the Independent Producers Organisation. http://www.ipo.org.za/ They represent small to medium film makers and film and TV companies. They have been a fantastic ally for civil society groups working on copyright issues, broadband, spectrum, and probably most prominently in a national campaign to save our public broadcaster from becoming a 'department' of government with little concern for the public interest. They have knowledge of the broadcasting industry which few civil society organisations have.. so working with them has really added knowledge, and built out capacity as CS orgs. Good examples among governments would be a network promoting the use of free and open source software in government. The real problem in our sector is that there are so few small organisations and local business networks doing consistent policy analysis and advocacy in it. The IGF and the regional IGFs are useful.. but so many of the policy making spaces are still closed in a real sense. What often happens in many developing countries is that when a policy process is semi-open is that only those large companies with large legal and policy teams are able to effectively influence the outcomes. Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 09:07 -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > Dear Parminder and all > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > Governments: > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. > > Regulators: > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > - some in the pocket of operators > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > Businesses - large mobile: > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > - many would like to get into content > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. > > Anriette > > > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > > development agenda.) > > > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > > interest and private interest. > > > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > > this difference. > > > > As Carlton notes in his email > > > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > Parminder: > > > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > > for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > > trumps. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > > developments. > > > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > > marketing. > > > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > > more attention. > > > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > > Reply-To:, parminder > > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > > To:, > > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > > something similar in Russia. > > > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > > neutrality (NN). > > > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > > above will be considered a NN violation under these > > > codes. > > > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > > at > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > > wired Internet. > > > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > > upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Fri Aug 13 13:17:07 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:17:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C657262.4060704@itforchange.net> References: <4C657262.4060704@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1281719827.1779.2546.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear Parminder As you know.. I don't personally like the term 'multi-stakeholderism'... neither in referring to policy dialogue or policy-making. Thanks for pointing out that you were referring specifically about policy making. We are not that far apart...but perhaps still some differences in nuance. It would be good to know how you see the private sector participating in policy-dialogue, and in policy-making. My experience has been that in giving ICT business voice in policy-making (in the consultation process, e.g. when drafting legislation) civil society and government are able to anticipate consequences which they would not otherwise have been able to. Also, by giving business voice in the policy-making process (in a facilitated manner) you get buy-in from the private sector which makes it more likely they will adhere to the policy and help implement it. In countries where the public sector does not have the capacity to implement... this is incredibly important. And in the same countries it becomes incredibly important to have a regulatory environment that ensures that the public interest is protected. Sometimes, depending on the specifics, the relationships between public sector/CS and business in a policy and regulation process will be cooperative, and sometimes it will be hostile. But assuming that all private sector entities do, in all cases, are not concerned about the public interest is not helpful. Sometimes they are genuinely interested, and sometimes their private interest can overlap with the the public interest (often the case in pro-competition policy). I agree that the policy discussion and the policy making processes should be separate.. but they should also connect. That a lot of internet policy is made in 'private' spaces does not help. And the public spaces are also problematic. In my country, sadly, the discussion and official submissions are often ignored as the process is finalised. Government ends up making policy that ignores stakeholder input (civil society, community, researchers, business, often all four). Well.. back to work.. discussion to be continued :) Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 21:57 +0530, parminder wrote: > Building on Micheal's post below, Anriette please note that i spoke > about multistakeholderism as a policy making form (or forum) and not a > discussion forum > > to quote from my email > > "The principal> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form," > > > > There are many on this list who uphold multistakeholderism as a > policy-making forum. That is what I am rebutting. > > Also, when we only speak of policy discussion forums like with the IGF > without talking of the policy making forum into which this discussion > must feed, which has to be a public interest based democratic forum, > expressly excluding private interests with conflict of interest wrt > policy matters being considered, we are promoting both a policy deficit > and a democratic deficit. > > The problem is when policy discussions take the place of policy making, > or still worse, as Micheal says, ' > > the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself." > > > This unfortunately is largely the situation of much of global IG today. > > Parminder > > > On Friday 13 August 2010 09:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. > > > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". > > > > Mike > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Dear Parminder and all > > > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. > > > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > > > Governments: > > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. > > > > Regulators: > > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > > - some in the pocket of operators > > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > > > Businesses - large mobile: > > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband > > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > > - many would like to get into content > > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. > > > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. > > > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. > > > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. > > > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. > > > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. > > > > Anriette > > > > > >> This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > >> developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > >> development agenda.) > >> > >> Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > >> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > >> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > >> understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > >> interest and private interest. > >> > >> Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed > >> to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > >> wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > >> That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > >> > >> On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > >> players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > >> about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > >> the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > >> and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > >> been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > >> society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > >> this difference. > >> > >> As Carlton notes in his email > >> > >> Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > >> of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > >> Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > >> money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > >> quixotic to pretend otherwise. > >> > >> It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working > >> for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > >> singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > >> representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > >> built to give political respectability to private interests. > >> > >> Parminder > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > >> > >>> Parminder: > >>> > >>> I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > >>> misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > >>> of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > >>> commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > >>> they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > >>> to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > >>> priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > >>> otherwise. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre > >>> Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > >>> And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > >>> telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > >>> show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > >>> customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > >>> light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > >>> portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > >>> sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > >>> volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > >>> marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > >>> for me. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > >>> of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > >>> opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > >>> belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > >>> expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > >>> Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > >>> I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > >>> stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > >>> is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > >>> politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > >>> BP in recent past!] > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > >>> response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > >>> losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > >>> genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > >>> trumps. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Carlton > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Carlton > >>> > >>> On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > >>> > >>> Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > >>> for civil society is transparency. > >>> > >>> > >>> No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's > >>> subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > >>> open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > >>> > >>> How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way > >>> of influencing it? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > >>> and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > >>> > >>> Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > >>> Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > >>> > >>> > >>> Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > >>> Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > >>> when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > >>> and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > >>> bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > >>> > >>> However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > >>> excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > >>> do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > >>> daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > >>> Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > >>> vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > >>> Internet for a more egalitarian world. > >>> > >>> You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > >>> i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > >>> the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > >>> and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > >>> view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > >>> which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > >>> responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > >>> strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > >>> but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > >>> developments. > >>> > >>> In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > >>> place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > >>> interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > >>> space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > >>> these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > >>> take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > >>> based service wont go anywhere. > >>> > >>> Parminder > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > >>> > >>> Carlton > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > >>> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >>> > >>> Ian and Parminder, > >>> > >>> This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > >>> between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > >>> David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > >>> available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > >>> get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > >>> > >>> It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > >>> more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > >>> customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > >>> marketing. > >>> > >>> Where do you see this 'line'? > >>> > >>> I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > >>> productive in Vilnius. > >>> > >>> Best, Ginger > >>> > >>> On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Parminder, > >>> > >>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > >>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > >>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > >>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > >>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > >>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > >>> more attention. > >>> > >>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > >>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > >>> > >>> > >>> I agree - we should discuss. > >>> > >>> > >>> Ian Peter > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: parminder > >>> Reply-To:, parminder > >>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > >>> To:, > >>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > >>> > >>> Hi All > >>> > >>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > >>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > >>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > >>> something similar in Russia. > >>> > >>> I consider this as an outright violation of net > >>> neutrality (NN). > >>> > >>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > >>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > >>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > >>> above will be considered a NN violation under these > >>> codes. > >>> > >>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > >>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > >>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > >>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > >>> > >>> Parminder > >>> > >>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > >>> at > >>> > >>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > >>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > >>> > >>> > >>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > >>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > >>> wired Internet. > >>> > >>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > >>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > >>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > >>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > >>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > >>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > >>> upon. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: > >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: > >>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >>> > >> 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 > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 14:42:55 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:42:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <1281717887.1779.2337.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <3173431E109F4433A5FAC04B1E767FD2@userPC> No disagreement on what you say below Anriette, but I would also add that there is a need to find a way of including even more grassroots Internet user organizations such as some with whom I'm currently engaged--Siyafunda http://www.siyafunda.com/; SEIDET http://w3.tue.nl/nl/diensten/daz/bestuurscommissies/tvo/afgelopen_activiteiten/education_for_development_seidet/ and Rlabs www.rlabs.org are all working quite directly with the SA majority population to use ICTs for economic and social development. What they have to say about Internet policy would I think directly inform discussions on Internet policy and development, Broadband deployment policy and so on. I suspect there are equivalent organizations in the range of Sub-Saharan African countries as well. At this point I don't see where they fit into any of the "multi-stakeholder" consultation processes as currently presented/operational. (For better or worse) their current policy engagement in so far as they have one is done through traditional policy/political processes and improving their capacity to influence policy outcomes means providing them support in their current forms of enagagement. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:45 AM To: Michael Gurstein Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Michael I think the the 'democratic deficit' results less from weaknesses in the processes (although these are real) than from weaknesses at the level of grassroots organisation. I would include small, medium, local business in grassroots in this context as much as I would include civil society. If we don't have strong organisations that understand 1) how to understand and promote the public interest, or even 2) how to understand and promote their own interest, policy making processes end up being controlled by the most powerful. Sometimes they are government, sometimes large companies, often, in countries where the public sector lacks capacity and political will, both together. We have to fix this by working from the bottom up... in all sectors. A great example in South Africa at the moment is a group called the Independent Producers Organisation. http://www.ipo.org.za/ They represent small to medium film makers and film and TV companies. They have been a fantastic ally for civil society groups working on copyright issues, broadband, spectrum, and probably most prominently in a national campaign to save our public broadcaster from becoming a 'department' of government with little concern for the public interest. They have knowledge of the broadcasting industry which few civil society organisations have.. so working with them has really added knowledge, and built out capacity as CS orgs. Good examples among governments would be a network promoting the use of free and open source software in government. The real problem in our sector is that there are so few small organisations and local business networks doing consistent policy analysis and advocacy in it. The IGF and the regional IGFs are useful.. but so many of the policy making spaces are still closed in a real sense. What often happens in many developing countries is that when a policy process is semi-open is that only those large companies with large legal and policy teams are able to effectively influence the outcomes. Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 09:07 -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is > that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated > as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. > What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who > should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to > discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making > structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the > policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only > on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is > paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based > democratic policy making structures. > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I > say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic > deficit". > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > Dear Parminder and all > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing > issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. > http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, > mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not > get nearly enough attention. > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see > net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be > great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > Governments: > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. > > Regulators: > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > - some in the pocket of operators > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > Businesses - large mobile: > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and > applications and in mobile broadband > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > - many would like to get into content > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and > content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest > groups.. these are just examples. > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i > said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as > simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on > policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just > depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It > is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and > opportunity at any given time. > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should > not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society > organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made > openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs > to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens > as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change > policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all > the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. > Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public > where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, > results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very > little capacity... even the good ones. > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important > experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy > making. > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from > lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those > people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, > workers, consumers. > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured > needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. > Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of > multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy > discussion and processes. > > Anriette > > > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > > development agenda.) > > > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business > > of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly > > understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic > > interest and private interest. > > > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are > > supposed > > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > > the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) > > and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always > > been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global > > society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish > > this difference. > > > > As Carlton notes in his email > > > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be > > working > > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > Parminder: > > > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, > > > pre > > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > > for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; > > > I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is > > > stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation > > > is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than > > > politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of > > > BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of > > > losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of > > > genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency > > > trumps. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in > > > Ginger's > > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no > > > way > > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this > > > when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS > > > and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and > > > bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can > > > do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the > > > daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that > > > the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, > > > and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my > > > view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective > > > which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with > > > responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them > > > strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums > > > but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > > developments. > > > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we > > > take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line > > > is > > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > > marketing. > > > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > > more attention. > > > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > > Reply-To:, parminder > > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > > To:, > > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > > something similar in Russia. > > > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > > neutrality (NN). > > > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > > above will be considered a NN violation under > > > these > > > codes. > > > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > > at > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > > wired Internet. > > > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > > upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Aug 13 14:51:50 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:51:50 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Message-ID: Whoops wrong Siyafunda http://www.zakwathu.com/ But they both do much the same thing... M -----Original Message----- From: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 11:43 AM To: 'anriette at apc.org' Cc: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles No disagreement on what you say below Anriette, but I would also add that there is a need to find a way of including even more grassroots Internet user organizations such as some with whom I'm currently engaged--Siyafunda http://www.siyafunda.com/; SEIDET http://w3.tue.nl/nl/diensten/daz/bestuurscommissies/tvo/afgelopen_activiteiten/education_for_development_seidet/ and Rlabs www.rlabs.org are all working quite directly with the SA majority population to use ICTs for economic and social development. What they have to say about Internet policy would I think directly inform discussions on Internet policy and development, Broadband deployment policy and so on. I suspect there are equivalent organizations in the range of Sub-Saharan African countries as well. At this point I don't see where they fit into any of the "multi-stakeholder" consultation processes as currently presented/operational. (For better or worse) their current policy engagement in so far as they have one is done through traditional policy/political processes and improving their capacity to influence policy outcomes means providing them support in their current forms of enagagement. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 9:45 AM To: Michael Gurstein Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'parminder' Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Michael I think the the 'democratic deficit' results less from weaknesses in the processes (although these are real) than from weaknesses at the level of grassroots organisation. I would include small, medium, local business in grassroots in this context as much as I would include civil society. If we don't have strong organisations that understand 1) how to understand and promote the public interest, or even 2) how to understand and promote their own interest, policy making processes end up being controlled by the most powerful. Sometimes they are government, sometimes large companies, often, in countries where the public sector lacks capacity and political will, both together. We have to fix this by working from the bottom up... in all sectors. A great example in South Africa at the moment is a group called the Independent Producers Organisation. http://www.ipo.org.za/ They represent small to medium film makers and film and TV companies. They have been a fantastic ally for civil society groups working on copyright issues, broadband, spectrum, and probably most prominently in a national campaign to save our public broadcaster from becoming a 'department' of government with little concern for the public interest. They have knowledge of the broadcasting industry which few civil society organisations have.. so working with them has really added knowledge, and built out capacity as CS orgs. Good examples among governments would be a network promoting the use of free and open source software in government. The real problem in our sector is that there are so few small organisations and local business networks doing consistent policy analysis and advocacy in it. The IGF and the regional IGFs are useful.. but so many of the policy making spaces are still closed in a real sense. What often happens in many developing countries is that when a policy process is semi-open is that only those large companies with large legal and policy teams are able to effectively influence the outcomes. Anriette On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 09:07 -0700, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is > that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated > as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. > What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who > should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to > discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? > > In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making > structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the > policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. > > Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only > on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is > paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based > democratic policy making structures. > > The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I > say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic > deficit". > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] > Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > Dear Parminder and all > > I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing > issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. > > My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. > > Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. > http://www.tech4africa.com/ > > It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, > mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not > get nearly enough attention. > > Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see > net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be > great if other Africans can share their perceptions: > > Governments: > - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators > - concerned with content and services and working with providers to > get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications > for competition/net neutrality etc. > > Regulators: > - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with > it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access > - some in the pocket of operators > - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure > > Businesses - large mobile: > - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and > applications and in mobile broadband > - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users > - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) > > Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: > - many would like to get into content > - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and > content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content > - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues > - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places > > Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest > groups.. these are just examples. > > NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: > - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i > said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators > - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues > > Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as > simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on > policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just > depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It > is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and > opportunity at any given time. > > I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should > not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. > > In most African countries there are still very few civil society > organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. > > Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made > openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs > to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens > as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change > policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all > the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. > Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public > where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, > results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. > > Consider also that in most developing countries government has very > little capacity... even the good ones. > > One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important > experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy > making. > > Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from > lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those > people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, > workers, consumers. > > How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured > needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. > Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. > > But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of > multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy > discussion and processes. > > Anriette > > > This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a > > developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be > > development agenda.) > > > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal > > lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy > > business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and > > clearly understand and accept the long established distinctions > > between pulbic interest and private interest. > > > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are > > supposed > > to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing > > wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. > > That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. > > > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest > > players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems > > about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However > > the essential difference between private interest players > > (businesses) and public interest players (civil society and > > governments) has always been clear, and we would be doing great > > disservice to the global society if in the name of > > multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. > > > > As Carlton notes in his email > > > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be > > working > > for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's > > singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest > > representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems > > built to give political respectability to private interests. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > Parminder: > > > > > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly > > > misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature > > > of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober > > > commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what > > > they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come > > > to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, > > > priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend > > > otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, > > > pre > > > Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. > > > And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that > > > telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and > > > show preference in very business-like practical ways for those > > > customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the > > > light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical > > > portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > > > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, > > > volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a > > > marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, > > > for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One > > > of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > > > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to > > > belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment > > > expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. > > > Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that > > > piece; I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. > > > Another is stoking public disgust. Because even the most > > > rapacious corporation is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, > > > even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the > > > public contortions of BP in recent past!] > > > > > > > > > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture > > > response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear > > > of losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests > > > out of genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that > > > transparency trumps. > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > > > > > > From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue > > > for civil society is transparency. > > > > > > > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in > > > Ginger's > > > subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and > > > open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > > > > > > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no > > > way > > > of influencing it? > > > > > > > > > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes > > > and activities intended to create advantage for one or other > > > player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. > > > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > > > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps > > > driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. > > > > > > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > > > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And > > > this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications > > > like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration > > > and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. > > > > > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > > > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument > > > can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about > > > the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the > > > Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of > > > vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the > > > Internet for a more egalitarian world. > > > > > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its > > > i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls > > > that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are > > > creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither > > > stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group > > > perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come > > > up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte > > > them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these > > > forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these > > > developments. > > > > > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market > > > place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social > > > interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a > > > space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on > > > these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what > > > we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet > > > based service wont go anywhere. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line > > > is > > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which > > > David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first > > > available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to > > > get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds > > > more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > > > customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not > > > marketing. > > > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > > more attention. > > > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > > Reply-To:, parminder > > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > > To:, > > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Hi All > > > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > > something similar in Russia. > > > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > > > neutrality (NN). > > > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > > above will be considered a NN violation under > > > these > > > codes. > > > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US > > > at > > > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than > > > wired Internet. > > > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > > upon. > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: > > > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 13 14:54:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:24:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <1281719827.1779.2546.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <4C657262.4060704@itforchange.net> <1281719827.1779.2546.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <4C6594D3.9090504@itforchange.net> Dear Anriette Very happy to discuss this very important issue. On Friday 13 August 2010 10:47 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Parminder > > As you know.. I don't personally like the term 'multi-stakeholderism'... > neither in referring to policy dialogue or policy-making. > Great! :) My preference is for 'deep democracy'. A concept that does not accept governments as sole custodians of public interest, and seeks to include a variety of players, largely civil society, but will also include private players, especially associations of private sector players which arguably represent a public interest viewpoint. However, there is great attention to the issue of relative power of different players, and the effort for inclusion is chiefly and clearly oriented towards interests that get marginalized in normal governance process. Big corporates that are in any case very cosy with governments are looked upon with a good deal of suspicion in using spaces created as part of deepening democracy. > Thanks for pointing out that you were referring specifically about > policy making. We are not that far apart...but perhaps still some > differences in nuance. It would be good to know how you see the private > sector participating in policy-dialogue, and in policy-making. > Policy dialogue spaces need to give special consideration to voices not often heard. I know of no country, democratic or authoritarian, where the big corporates do not have easy access to all levels of powers. In fact in all countries they have a much closer relationship than can be characterized by 'easy access'. Any formal policy dialogue space therefore should make sure that corporates are preferably only represented by their associations and not as companies as such. However, if at all it is necessary to get some company in because of its special presence in the area of discussion, or because there is a desire not to stop anyone from coming in, an extra-ordinary effort has to be made to ensure that the major part of the policy dialogue space is allowed for the normally less heard voices, or (as mostly the case will be) their representatives. And these steps I mention are to be taken seriously, and evidently. This is not an 'also to do' list. These steps are 'the' thing. Without these necessary steps multistakeholderism actually reduces participation of less heard voices of marginalised people, by giving legitimacy to dominant private interests influencing policies. Since you have quoted examples from the ground, let me also do so from our experience in India. First of all we too work with private sector small scale FOSS players for our FOSS related policy work. We find nothing wrong in it. (I can discuss this angle at more length later.) We have lately seen two processes of ICT policy development. One of them, ICT in schools policy, was so completely highjacked by corporates that the minister had to step in and scrap the process. (This is rare thing which happened because the concerned minister was an old fashioned socialist). Another process, of open standards in egov policy, also has been considerably highjacked by the same corporates. All this, especially the ICT in schools policy process, was done in the name of multistakeholderism. On the other hand, a few years back India's National Curriculum Framework was prepared through a nation-wide old style consultative process, with public hearings in many places across the country, and was much more participative. It was clear that the process had to actually reach out to public interest actors, especially those representing less heard of voices. ('Multistakeholder' or MS events on the other hand are mostly held by private sector money in enclaves whose gatekeeping in open and subtle ways is done by dominant interests.) I am not saying that old fashioned publicly funded consultations are perfect, but I will try to keep seeking improvements in them than take up the new ones that I see under multistakeholder umbrella, employing concepts like multistakeholder funding etc, which are really largely industry controlled. I can vouch for it first hand that this is the situaion in India in ICT area. that is our experience from the ground. You perhaps know of e-India event, tipped as world's largest e-event or something. This is organized by a body which started as a civil society organization, took a lot of funder money, and now holds events largely using funds provided by large digital companies, where the whole list of speakers is just of gov officials and representatives of large companies, mostly sponsors, with, hold your breath, often not a single civil society speaker, not even the co-opting level kind which some other MS events do. > My experience has been that in giving ICT business voice in > policy-making (in the consultation process, e.g. when drafting > legislation) civil society and government are able to anticipate > consequences which they would not otherwise have been able to. > > Also, by giving business voice in the policy-making process (in a > facilitated manner) you get buy-in from the private sector which makes > it more likely they will adhere to the policy and help implement it. In > countries where the public sector does not have the capacity to > implement... this is incredibly important. And in the same countries it > becomes incredibly important to have a regulatory environment that > ensures that the public interest is protected. > This is the real politik, acknowledging the powerful, argument. I dont much like it :). I understand the 'weak state' situation, esp in Africa. But then civil society should side with the weak state - however perfect, trying to improve it, rather than legitimise the power of big corporates. They will in any case do what they can. Notional opposition to this state of affairs at least keeps us moving in the right directions.... with some hope of democratic powers triumphing some day. > Sometimes, depending on the specifics, the relationships between public > sector/CS and business in a policy and regulation process will be > cooperative, and sometimes it will be hostile. > > But assuming that all private sector entities do, in all cases, are not > concerned about the public interest is not helpful. > This is not at all the assumption. For instance, Indian generic drug industry is the biggest ally in struggles against stronger IP regimes in the area of drugs. > Sometimes they are genuinely interested, and sometimes their private > interest can overlap with the the public interest (often the case in > pro-competition policy). > > I agree that the policy discussion and the policy making processes > should be separate.. but they should also connect. That a lot of > internet policy is made in 'private' spaces does not help. And the > public spaces are also problematic. > They should connect.... but to connect there should be sufficient policy making space in the first place. In the area of global IG that is largely absent, and thus the need to work for it, beyond supporting the IGF. > In my country, sadly, the discussion and official submissions are often > ignored as the process is finalised. Government ends up making policy > that ignores stakeholder input (civil society, community, researchers, > business, often all four). > Yes, the fight for real democracy is a long and hard one. In this we are together. My concern is that multistakeholderism as preached and practised today is becoming one of the biggest challenges to democracy, Apologies for the long response. Best. Parminder > Well.. back to work.. discussion to be continued :) > > Anriette > > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 21:57 +0530, parminder wrote: > >> Building on Micheal's post below, Anriette please note that i spoke >> about multistakeholderism as a policy making form (or forum) and not a >> discussion forum >> >> to quote from my email >> >> "The principal> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form," >> >> >> >> There are many on this list who uphold multistakeholderism as a >> policy-making forum. That is what I am rebutting. >> >> Also, when we only speak of policy discussion forums like with the IGF >> without talking of the policy making forum into which this discussion >> must feed, which has to be a public interest based democratic forum, >> expressly excluding private interests with conflict of interest wrt >> policy matters being considered, we are promoting both a policy deficit >> and a democratic deficit. >> >> The problem is when policy discussions take the place of policy making, >> or still worse, as Micheal says, ' >> >> the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself." >> >> >> This unfortunately is largely the situation of much of global IG today. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> On Friday 13 August 2010 09:37 PM, Michael Gurstein wrote: >> >>> I completely agree with Anriette as far as she goes, the problem is that "discussion and processes" in many cases blur (or are anticipated as blurring) into policy making and that's where the issues arise. What should be the processes (and structures) of policy making and who should be involved in the actual making of the policy as opposed to discussion about/consultation concerning the policy? >>> >>> In the absence of effective (democratically anchored) policy making structures there is a tendency to allow the process leading up to the policy to in some sense become the policy making itself. >>> >>> Also, by focusing our (civil society's) attention and resources only on the (multi-stakeholder) processes insufficient attention is paid/resources given to building/reinforcing the broadly based democratic policy making structures. >>> >>> The IGF (including the regional IGF's) are useful certainly but dare I say that they still suffer rather severely from a "democratic deficit". >>> >>> Mike >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Anriette Esterhuysen [mailto:anriette at apc.org] >>> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2010 7:28 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder >>> Cc: SAMUELS,Carlton A >>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>> >>> >>> Dear Parminder and all >>> >>> I agree with Parminder on network neutrality being a very pressing issue in developing countries.. particularly in the mobile universe. >>> >>> My views on stakeholders participation are probably a bit different. >>> >>> Yesterday I participated in a conference called Tech4Africa. http://www.tech4africa.com/ >>> >>> It was very interesting, very dynamic. Mobile, mobile broadband, mobile content featured in several sessions. Net neutrality did not get nearly enough attention. >>> >>> Here is my reading on how different stakeholder groups in Africa see net neutrality in Africa. These are just perceptions and it would be great if other Africans can share their perceptions: >>> >>> Governments: >>> - either unaware or already in the pockets of the mobile operators >>> - concerned with content and services and working with providers to get these to end-users without any consideration of the implications for competition/net neutrality etc. >>> >>> Regulators: >>> - some beginning to think about the issue, not sure how to deal with it, often of the view that it is not yet a priority and that they should focus on reducing cost of access >>> - some in the pocket of operators >>> - some just not really aware of how to deal with this issue in mobile and of the view that it only applies to fixed line or internet infrastructure >>> >>> Businesses - large mobile: >>> - large mobile operators area seriously investing in content and applications and in mobile broadband >>> - partnering with development agencies and business to provide services that are making them a fortune, and benefiting users >>> - in fact... it would not surprise me if Safaricom wins a Nobel Peace Prize for Mpesa :) >>> >>> Business - small and medium in the ICT sector: >>> - many would like to get into content >>> - some fear for their survival if they cannot get into mobile and content, particularly digital broadcasting, e.g. local producers of local content, local language content, and also public interest content >>> - the lack of net neutrality in the mobile space is of HUGE concern to them once they understand the issues >>> - other smaller business and also community and not-for-profit initiatives are forced to work through the large operators when they develop content for mobile... very anti-competitive.. kind of replicates what happened with government owned telco monopolies forcing everyone to use their infractructure for internet... which is still happening in some places >>> >>> Business can be broken into many more stakeholder and interest groups.. these are just examples. >>> >>> NGO/Not-for-profit/social and community enterprises: >>> - exploring content and service and applications... currently, as i said above, they depend on the 'generosity and goodwill' of mobile operators >>> - the difference here is that at least those who are in the content business know that lack of net neutrality is bad... the NGOs are not aware of these issues >>> >>> Sorry.. this is long.. but I am trying to say that real life is not as simple as you make it out to be. Interests and where groups stand on policy and regulation on for example net neutrality does not just depend on whether the 'stakeholder' is a business or a government. It is based on specific configurations of power and knowledge and opportunity at any given time. >>> >>> I agree with you that in the making of policy all stakeholders should not have equal power. It depends on the policy - and also on the specific public interest at stake. But assuming that government and civil society are the sole protectors of the public interest does not always hold true in my experience, not in Africa. Often in the ICT sector it is the small to medium business players whose interests come closest to that of the general public. >>> >>> In most African countries there are still very few civil society organisations active in the ICT or access to knowledge policy debates. >>> >>> Government has a specific role in making sure that policy is made openly and inclusively, and in the public interest. Government needs to be held accountable for the policy implementation, and what happens as a result of this implication. They need to be forced to fix/change policies that do not service the public interest. But hearing what all the different stakeholders have to say is always useful in my opinion. Policy making processes that listens and asks questions in public where community, business, civil society can all say their piece, results in better policy and stronger partnership in implementation. >>> >>> Consider also that in most developing countries government has very little capacity... even the good ones. >>> >>> One of the many reasons why I feel that IGF has been such an important experiment is that it is a forum for policy dialogue, not for policy making. >>> >>> Both policy making and policy dialogue works better with input from lots of different stakeholders. Business and civil society and those people that are usually not included enough, communities, end-users, workers, consumers. >>> >>> How the multi-stakeholder participation is facilitated and configured needs to be different in dialogue spaces and policy-making processes. Mechanisms to avoid the abuse of power are essential in policy-making. >>> >>> But I don't think we should ever undervalue the value of multi-stakeholder participation in our sector... including in policy discussion and processes. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> >>>> This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a >>>> developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be >>>> development agenda.) >>>> >>>> Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal >>>> lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business >>>> of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly >>>> understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic >>>> interest and private interest. >>>> >>>> Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed >>>> to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing >>>> wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. >>>> That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. >>>> >>>> On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest >>>> players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems >>>> about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However >>>> the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) >>>> and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always >>>> been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global >>>> society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish >>>> this difference. >>>> >>>> As Carlton notes in his email >>>> >>>> Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications >>>> of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. >>>> Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of >>>> money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is >>>> quixotic to pretend otherwise. >>>> >>>> It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working >>>> for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's >>>> singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest >>>> representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems >>>> built to give political respectability to private interests. >>>> >>>> Parminder >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Parminder: >>>>> >>>>> I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly >>>>> misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature >>>>> of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober >>>>> commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what >>>>> they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come >>>>> to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, >>>>> priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend >>>>> otherwise. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre >>>>> Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. >>>>> And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that >>>>> telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and >>>>> show preference in very business-like practical ways for those >>>>> customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the >>>>> light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical >>>>> portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally >>>>> sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, >>>>> volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a >>>>> marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, >>>>> for me. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One >>>>> of them is to make personal statements that undergird our >>>>> opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to >>>>> belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment >>>>> expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. >>>>> Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; >>>>> I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is >>>>> stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation >>>>> is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than >>>>> politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of >>>>> BP in recent past!] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture >>>>> response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of >>>>> losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of >>>>> genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency >>>>> trumps. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carlton >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From:parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Carlton >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue >>>>> for civil society is transparency. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's >>>>> subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and >>>>> open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." >>>>> >>>>> How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way >>>>> of influencing it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes >>>>> and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. >>>>> >>>>> Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS >>>>> Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine >>>>> Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this >>>>> when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS >>>>> and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and >>>>> bundling would do in the network or Internet space. >>>>> >>>>> However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible >>>>> excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can >>>>> do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the >>>>> daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the >>>>> Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of >>>>> vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the >>>>> Internet for a more egalitarian world. >>>>> >>>>> You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its >>>>> i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that >>>>> the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, >>>>> and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my >>>>> view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective >>>>> which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with >>>>> responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them >>>>> strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums >>>>> but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these >>>>> developments. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market >>>>> place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social >>>>> interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a >>>>> space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on >>>>> these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we >>>>> take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet >>>>> based service wont go anywhere. >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. >>>>> >>>>> Carlton >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>>> >>>>> Ian and Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is >>>>> between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which >>>>> David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first >>>>> available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to >>>>> get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. >>>>> >>>>> It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds >>>>> more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts >>>>> customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not >>>>> marketing. >>>>> >>>>> Where do you see this 'line'? >>>>> >>>>> I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more >>>>> productive in Vilnius. >>>>> >>>>> Best, Ginger >>>>> >>>>> On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Parminder, >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common >>>>> practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free >>>>> zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or >>>>> traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to >>>>> want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free >>>>> market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot >>>>> more attention. >>>>> >>>>> The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and >>>>> potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree - we should discuss. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ian Peter >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From: parminder >>>>> Reply-To:, parminder >>>>> Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 >>>>> To:, >>>>> Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles >>>>> >>>>> Hi All >>>>> >>>>> The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free >>>>> of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I >>>>> understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about >>>>> something similar in Russia. >>>>> >>>>> I consider this as an outright violation of net >>>>> neutrality (NN). >>>>> >>>>> Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like >>>>> Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and >>>>> understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as >>>>> above will be considered a NN violation under these >>>>> codes. >>>>> >>>>> If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of >>>>> shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start >>>>> testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, >>>>> and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. >>>>> >>>>> Parminder >>>>> >>>>> PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US >>>>> at >>>>> >>>>> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- >>>>> own-net-neutrality-deal.ars >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based >>>>> Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than >>>>> wired Internet. >>>>> >>>>> As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to >>>>> arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party >>>>> to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely >>>>> dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, >>>>> the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and >>>>> indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder >>>>> upon. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: >>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: >>>>> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Aug 13 16:15:39 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 15:15:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BA76@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Dear Deidre: No, perish the thought. This is a space for exchanging ideas on this or any related other subject, even with folks who may describe themselves as experts. In context, you touched on a very important question that brought several intriguing ideas top of mind. Is the use of social engineering - the matter of using the data and information derived and extracted from the observed behaviour of the crowd - to exact ordered behavior for profit or advantage ever desirable? Here is the thing. "Free" is never so free. At least not on the Internet. This is perhaps the most direct contemporary instance that underscores the value associated with data...and the price of "knowing". That knowing comes with a price tag. The only difference is that the Internet model upends the idea of who gets the bill; it isn't always obvious since the guy judged with the greater ability to pay real dollars often is the one who gets the bill. In fact the business model has people competing to pay your bill. So now, ask yourself, why would someone want to pay my ticket? Let me extend the rule of thumb in this way. If you get a service, however slight that service, so long as it consumes resources in provisioning, someone pays. Take this like an article of faith: there truly are no free lunches. I teach Information Science and we are forever exhorting our students to group work, extolling the benefits of collaboration. Then we are stumped when they use bits and pieces of content from here and there in a 'mashup' paper without recording the source of every idea. The collective has a downside. [Apropos, there was a very interesting blog entry in the NYT this week on plagiarism.] Undoubtedly, there is a place for 'rugged' individualism. The importance of that one person - that brilliant contrarian - to innovation because they dare to think outside the box is well known to history. Indeed, it is sometimes the centerpiece of national myths. American mythmaking, for example, have written out of history - some say whitewash - the life-giving help extended to the early European colonists by Native Americans to burnish this ideal. Individualism can go only so far in some things. There are equally compelling tales of innovation generated in the collective brilliance of the crowd. Group think, you might say, in furtherance of the common good. We almost intuitively understand that when the power equation is in play, maybe 'crowding' is the single best response for those who are weaker in that construct; the classic reason for collaborating. And sharing the pain - and rewards -is the orthodox posture in movements beyond memory, even whole societies. There are enough exemplars from the lives of social animals like bees and ants to go round and underline the case. And then there are the ills that come with a crowd; think of yob behavior experienced by football fans in certain countries or the lynch mobs of too many places. People and things share attributes that if combined, can bode ill..or good. [Interestingly enough, the Latin root for 'conspire' means 'to breathe together'!] I will always be humble and concede that I cannot always determine outcomes. For in this life there always shall be too many uncontrollable variables; be it with business or people. But I would very much prefer to know what attributes are in play that might affect all possible outcomes. I want to "know" what "they" know! For the 'knowing' is always better than not. Carlton From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:34 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Parminder and everyone, I am very conscious of the fact that I am NOT a techie, so please forgive me if I am stating the obvious/making a fool of myself or both. As far as I am concerned "network neutrality" speaks to the management of the hardware, software and traffic of the internet to preserve interoperability and open equitable access ... a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. I was prodded into replying by what Parminder has to say quoted above. This aspect of the Internet is deeply important to me. For some time I have been alarmed at and thinking about a predatory behaviour online which I describe to myself as "webherding". Subsequently I discovered that other people call the same phenomenon "social engineering" which sounds almost respectable :-) Herding behaviour is something that man has learned to make use of to his benefit - but at the same time sharks do it, wolves do it, very much to the detriment of that which is herded. When herded, creatures lose their individuality, and the possibility of innovation, the possibility of choice. A world is created which is the diametric opposite of the type of world the Internet is sold to us as being. Somehow our perception of the world has been shifted to a focus where business ethics have become a sort of norm - if it is good business then it is also generally good and should not be questioned. Deirdre Parminder Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To:, parminder Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 To:, Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Aug 13 17:33:47 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:33:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] The FCC and the bandwidth wars - Column from the Washington Post Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Another view on the NN 'wars". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead Carlton Samuels -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 14 03:58:38 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 13:28:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> On Saturday 14 August 2010 03:03 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Another view on the NN 'wars". > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead > > Carlton Samuels > For some unclear reasons the author of the article has chosen to completely ignore the most discussed about issue in the verizon-google deal - treating wireless networks in a manner different than wired ones vis a vis net neutrality. By the way, I am impressed the number of time the term 'public internet' is being used now. It was almost two years ago in Hyderabad IGF that IT for Change did a sign on campaign for 'protecting the publicness of the Internet'. A couple of years earlier when a call was made for submitting possible themes for the first IGF we had submitted the theme of 'defining and fostering the publicness of the Internet'. When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? Parminder -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 04:29:48 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 11:29:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BA76@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <4C5EA4F8.3070502@gmail.com> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B590A1A@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C62AA3F.3030608@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BA76@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: I am finding a highly ironic example of lack of NN on mobiles while reading this thread. I can read most posts, except those that are very long. This seems to be mainly where folk havent bottom trimmed their mails. Can we try to do so in future. Remember, be conservative in what you send......rgds, McTim On 8/13/10, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > Dear Deidre: > No, perish the thought. This is a space for exchanging ideas on this or any > related other subject, even with folks who may describe themselves as > experts. In context, you touched on a very important question that brought > several intriguing ideas top of mind. Is the use of social engineering - > the matter of using the data and information derived and extracted from the > observed behaviour of the crowd - to exact ordered behavior for profit or > advantage ever desirable? > > Here is the thing. "Free" is never so free. At least not on the Internet. > This is perhaps the most direct contemporary instance that underscores the > value associated with data...and the price of "knowing". That knowing comes > with a price tag. The only difference is that the Internet model upends the > idea of who gets the bill; it isn't always obvious since the guy judged with > the greater ability to pay real dollars often is the one who gets the bill. > In fact the business model has people competing to pay your bill. So now, > ask yourself, why would someone want to pay my ticket? Let me extend the > rule of thumb in this way. If you get a service, however slight that > service, so long as it consumes resources in provisioning, someone pays. > Take this like an article of faith: there truly are no free lunches. > > I teach Information Science and we are forever exhorting our students to > group work, extolling the benefits of collaboration. Then we are stumped > when they use bits and pieces of content from here and there in a 'mashup' > paper without recording the source of every idea. The collective has a > downside. [Apropos, there was a very interesting blog entry in the NYT this > week on plagiarism.] > > Undoubtedly, there is a place for 'rugged' individualism. The importance of > that one person - that brilliant contrarian - to innovation because they > dare to think outside the box is well known to history. Indeed, it is > sometimes the centerpiece of national myths. American mythmaking, for > example, have written out of history - some say whitewash - the life-giving > help extended to the early European colonists by Native Americans to burnish > this ideal. Individualism can go only so far in some things. > > There are equally compelling tales of innovation generated in the collective > brilliance of the crowd. Group think, you might say, in furtherance of the > common good. We almost intuitively understand that when the power equation > is in play, maybe 'crowding' is the single best response for those who are > weaker in that construct; the classic reason for collaborating. And sharing > the pain - and rewards -is the orthodox posture in movements beyond memory, > even whole societies. There are enough exemplars from the lives of social > animals like bees and ants to go round and underline the case. And then > there are the ills that come with a crowd; think of yob behavior experienced > by football fans in certain countries or the lynch mobs of too many places. > > People and things share attributes that if combined, can bode ill..or good. > [Interestingly enough, the Latin root for 'conspire' means 'to breathe > together'!] I will always be humble and concede that I cannot always > determine outcomes. For in this life there always shall be too many > uncontrollable variables; be it with business or people. But I would very > much prefer to know what attributes are in play that might affect all > possible outcomes. I want to "know" what "they" know! > > For the 'knowing' is always better than not. > > Carlton > > From: Deirdre Williams [mailto:williams.deirdre at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 11:34 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > Dear Parminder and everyone, > I am very conscious of the fact that I am NOT a techie, so please forgive me > if I am stating the obvious/making a fool of myself or both. As far as I am > concerned "network neutrality" speaks to the management of the hardware, > software and traffic of the internet to preserve interoperability and open > equitable access > > ... a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to > > probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve > > the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who > > cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless > > greatly affected by these developments. > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is > a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public > media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps > without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the > Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free > Internet based service wont go anywhere. > > I was prodded into replying by what Parminder has to say quoted above. This > aspect of the Internet is deeply important to me. For some time I have been > alarmed at and thinking about a predatory behaviour online which I describe > to myself as "webherding". Subsequently I discovered that other people call > the same phenomenon "social engineering" which sounds almost respectable :-) > > Herding behaviour is something that man has learned to make use of to his > benefit - but at the same time sharks do it, wolves do it, very much to the > detriment of that which is herded. When herded, creatures lose their > individuality, and the possibility of innovation, the possibility of choice. > A world is created which is the diametric opposite of the type of world the > Internet is sold to us as being. > > Somehow our perception of the world has been shifted to a focus where > business ethics have become a sort of norm - if it is good business then it > is also generally good and should not be questioned. > > Deirdre > > Parminder > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David > > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone > > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more > > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My > > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > Reply-To:, > parminder > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To:, > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > "The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -- Sent from my mobile device Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 15:28:31 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:58:31 -0430 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sat Aug 14 17:40:55 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 14:40:55 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> On 08/14/2010 12:58 AM, parminder wrote: > By the way, I am impressed the number of time the term 'public internet' > is being used now. Perhaps we ought to be somewhat careful about how that term is used. Much, perhaps most, of the internet infrastructure is owned and operated by private actors, particularly if one considers mobile phone providers that carry IP packets as also being part of the internet. I think that many of us look at the term "public internet" as a blanket phrase that covers the net as en entirety. However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or operated by a public entity. In that latter case the notion of net neutrality that is being espoused for the "public internet" would be net neutrality only on that small part that is owned or operated by some sort of public entity. That would suggest that the remainder, the privately owned or operated parts, would be free to engage in traffic engineering. And even in that narrow use of the words "public internet" there is danger - for example here in the USA the military and its supporting military-industrial complex operate several of the domain name system root servers. It would be naive to believe that the US military would agree to subordinate US national security to the principles of network neutrality. (I personally would not be surprised if the US were, in fact, using the rather unique observation capabilities of a root server to do some - what word should I use? - observation. For more on that notion see http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000232.html ) We are entering an er of increasing use of private interconnects between large content providers and content deliverers. This is nothing new, but it is of increasing popularity. And it is something that requires non-neutral treatment of packets even if that non-neutral treatment is differential routing onto a private interconnect based on shallow inspection of IP addresses or protocol. Personally I am of the belief that the words "network neutrality" are essentially meaningless. I look at the situation and accept the fact that non-equal treatment ("traffic engineering") is both reasonable and, in some cases (particularly for conversational or real-time control purposes), it is necessary. (For example, look at the way that even small delays in the carriage of domain name system packets multiply into perceptions of sluggish application behaviour. That suggests that some carriers may reasonably chose a non-neutral path in which they give DNS packets priority.) So I look beyond the notion of pure network neutrality and ask the next question - in whose hands are vested the power to pull the levers and twist the dials of control of the non-neutral behaviour of the net? To my mind that power should be vested in the users, and by explicit or implicit delegation to their applications and their contracted ISPs. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 18:58:21 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:58:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Is unequal treatment of Internet users justifiable based on ability to pay for it? Message-ID: On 8/14/10, Karl Auerbach wrote: > I think that many of us look at the term "public internet" as a blanket > phrase that covers the net as en entirety. > > However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public > internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or > operated by a public entity. As with many words in the dictionary, numerous meanings exist but reasonably intelligent users and writers are able to distinguish them and convey clear meanings in the specific context in which they arise. The existence of multiple meanings for the term "public internet" is not, on its face, even a concern, unless and until it is shown that users of the term are unable to convey themselves clearly. [snip] > Personally I am of the belief that the words "network neutrality" are > essentially meaningless. I look at the situation and accept the fact > that non-equal treatment ("traffic engineering") is both reasonable and, > in some cases (particularly for conversational or real-time control > purposes), it is necessary. > > (For example, look at the way that even small delays in the carriage of > domain name system packets multiply into perceptions of sluggish > application behaviour. That suggests that some carriers may reasonably > chose a non-neutral path in which they give DNS packets priority.) If my internet access is sluggish, the problem could be either (1) the internet (2) the specific website I'm accessing, or (3) my computer. If unequal treatment is allowed via a private agreement between Giant Corporation and, say, Verizon, then some websites will continue to be slow while Giant Corporation's website will load much better. This will falsely lead many people to conclude that the problem is with the remaining sluggish websites, leading them to incrementally and unfairly avoid those websites, and.or lead to excessive investment and loss of time and money attempting to fix one's own computer when it actually doesn't need fixing. While you correctly point to the problem of sluggish performance of websites creating the inference of a website problem, allowing unequal treatment only exacerbates that problem and misleads people, whenever they (as is often the case) have also experienced other slow websites. > > So I look beyond the notion of pure network neutrality and ask the next > question - in whose hands are vested the power to pull the levers and > twist the dials of control of the non-neutral behaviour of the net? To > my mind that power should be vested in the users, and by explicit or > implicit delegation to their applications and their contracted ISPs. "Opting in" via a contract of adhesion full of fine print with an ISP or provider like Verizon does not result in meaningful "governance by agreement" but only in government-by-large-ISPs and those who control or own infrastructure of the Internet. For this reason, vesting "power" "in users" to delegate to applications and their contracted ISPs" is quite nearly the opposite of empowering the actual users of the internet, which is nearly the entire basis of the concept of the Internet as a public good, as well as the basis of much individual and even corporate investment in the concept of the Internet and Internet presence. Dictating public policy based on ability to pay, with the result being expressly admitted "unequal treatment" is, in my opinion, very poor public policy. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Sat Aug 14 19:25:27 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:25:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BBA5@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> I certainly support the idea that we must agree common definitions before we sally forth. The cleavage being advocated between the wired and wireless Internet is certainly something that we must consider, if only because for much of our world, the Internet is going to be a wireless neighbourhood. Carlton From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 2:59 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality On Saturday 14 August 2010 03:03 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Another view on the NN 'wars". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead Carlton Samuels For some unclear reasons the author of the article has chosen to completely ignore the most discussed about issue in the verizon-google deal - treating wireless networks in a manner different than wired ones vis a vis net neutrality. By the way, I am impressed the number of time the term 'public internet' is being used now. It was almost two years ago in Hyderabad IGF that IT for Change did a sign on campaign for 'protecting the publicness of the Internet'. A couple of years earlier when a call was made for submitting possible themes for the first IGF we had submitted the theme of 'defining and fostering the publicness of the Internet'. When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? Parminder -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sat Aug 14 19:33:47 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 16:33:47 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: Is unequal treatment of Internet users justifiable based on ability to pay for it? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> On 08/14/2010 03:58 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: >> However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public >> internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or >> operated by a public entity. > > As with many words in the dictionary, numerous meanings exist but > reasonably intelligent users and writers are able to distinguish them > and convey clear meanings "clear meanings"? Clear to whom? The argument you are making is one that says "public internet" and "internet" are of identical meaning, which is to say that the word "public" is a meaningless and thus superfluous adjective. On the other hand some of us read words, particularly words of legal import, so that every word has meaning and no word is surplus. Which is to say that the word "public" in the phrase "public internet" is a word that has meaning. But you missed my larger point - it is very possible, even perhaps likely, that those who author statements of net neutrality couched with phrases such as "public internet" actually mean their statements only to apply to those parts that are owned or operated by a public entity. Humpty Dumpty famously asked who is the master, Humpty or the word. When performing exegesis on statements by Google or Verizon or others about network neutrality it would be useful to remember that the authors of those statements are using extremely careful language to navigate very tricky policy waters and that those authors are the masters of their own words. Regarding your dismissal of a provider who traffic engineers their network routers to give priority to domain name query and response packets: Why should not a provider build a network that makes their network feel more responsive to users? What is wrong with that? And, finally, you dismiss the ability of people to make their own decisions (or to delegate those choices to their chosen agents) and thus say that there should be no choice possible at all because to do so simply empowers the rich over the poor. That strikes me as an argument that says that people are unable to live their own lives and that they must depend upon protection from those with more expertise or time. That was the same argument used by Queen Victoria and King Leopold to justify their imperial policies over the people in their African colonies in the 19th century. It is not an argument that I am particularly willing to accept. I am not opposed to protective agencies and even paternalistic institutions - I do believe that governments, and citizens under those governments, do have duties of those kinds. However, I do object to such agencies and institutions when they do not allow individuals to opt out and chose their own path. The internet is not free. If people are not allowed to chose the way that they want to use the internet then those choices will be made by others. And more often than not those choices will be made by those who view the internet as a means to make money from users or, as we are beginning to increasingly see, as a means to impose governmental policies. User choice is not some sort of anathema; user choice works just fine in other areas of life. Are you opposed to services such as Federal Express of UPS that provided tiered package delivery services for tiered prices? Again I ask, if the knobs and levers that control how traffic is passed across the internet are not knobs and levers that can be manipulated by users then who is going to have the power to do that manipulation and to what ends? --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sat Aug 14 20:10:19 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 20:10:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: As I suspect "public internet" for most proponents on this list refers to something more than just a bunch of IP-based networks owned/operated by some public entities, I guess the challenge now is to try and define what (more/else) 'public internet' might mean, if anything -- as Paque suggested, among other terms. My own guess is, if there's such a thing as public internet, it'll have to be built on the idea that TCP/IP is a public good (or in the public domain). But I'm afraid we'll need more than that, which will depend on political will and negotiations among stakeholders. This will probably involve the deployment and acceptance of some norms (maybe even a "political fiction") and concepts that will set forth, and maybe guarantee, the terms of a "minimum" or "basic" Internet access to all users in the name of public good (which is my provisional understanding of 'public internet'). Now if that understanding points in the right direction (the terms of the "minimum" being what's at stake, and still to be specified) then the reality is, between a basic access to TCP/IP operated networks and undiscriminated access to virtually all IP-generated networks and capabilities available at one point in time around the world, there probably is quite a room for engineering whatever which may differentiate traffic... Unless (and we're back to what exactly 'public internet' means, if not that.) OECD released the following report a couple years ago on "Internet Traffic Prioritisation" you may want to re-visit for the purpose of this renewed discussion: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/63/38405781.pdf Mawaki On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/14/2010 12:58 AM, parminder wrote: > >> By the way, I am impressed the number of time the term 'public internet' >> is being used now. > > Perhaps we ought to be somewhat careful about how that term is used. > > Much, perhaps most, of the internet infrastructure is owned and operated by > private actors, particularly if one considers mobile phone providers that > carry IP packets as also being part of the internet. > > I think that many of us look at the term "public internet" as a blanket > phrase that covers the net as en entirety. > > However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public > internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or operated > by a public entity. > > In that latter case the notion of net neutrality that is being espoused for > the "public internet" would be net neutrality only on that small part that > is owned or operated by some sort of public entity.  That would suggest that > the remainder, the privately owned or operated parts, would be free to > engage in traffic engineering. > > And even in that narrow use of the words "public internet" there is danger - > for example here in the USA the military and its supporting > military-industrial complex operate several of the domain name system root > servers.  It would be naive to believe that the US military would agree to > subordinate US national security to the principles of network neutrality. >  (I personally would not be surprised if the US were, in fact, using the > rather unique observation capabilities of a root server to do some - what > word should I use? - observation.  For more on that notion see > http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000232.html ) > > We are entering an er of increasing use of private interconnects between > large content providers and content deliverers.  This is nothing new, but it > is of increasing popularity.  And it is something that requires non-neutral > treatment of packets even if that non-neutral treatment is differential > routing onto a private interconnect based on shallow inspection of IP > addresses or protocol. > > Personally I am of the belief that the words "network neutrality" are > essentially meaningless.  I look at the situation and accept the fact that > non-equal treatment ("traffic engineering") is both reasonable and, in some > cases (particularly for conversational or real-time control purposes), it is > necessary. > > (For example, look at the way that even small delays in the carriage of > domain name system packets multiply into perceptions of sluggish application > behaviour.  That suggests that some carriers may reasonably chose a > non-neutral path in which they give DNS packets priority.) > > So I look beyond the notion of pure network neutrality and ask the next > question - in whose hands are vested the power to pull the levers and twist > the dials of control of the non-neutral behaviour of the net?  To my mind > that power should be vested in the users, and by explicit or implicit > delegation to their applications and their contracted ISPs. > >                --karl-- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 15 00:23:48 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 00:23:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> let's add in the phrase 'open Internet' which actually means something...as opposed to the term dumped by US courts and now by its inventor, Google. ________________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:28 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: Internet: Public Internet: Internet as a public good: Net Neutrality: On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 15 01:33:49 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:03:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] network neutrality and the public internet In-Reply-To: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> References: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4C677C3D.1030206@itforchange.net> A very interesting discussion! And one very much pointing to the heart of the issue. Let me chip in too. Karl says he doesnt understand the meaning of 'public'. But his discourse is full of, in fact almost entirely based on, the term 'user'. As argued many times before, I do not understand the social meaning and implications of this term 'user', and find its use in socio-political discourse around the Internet very problematic. Before going on with this, let me state a meta point. Language and discourse has its political economy What terms we use and/ or understand and which not often depends on where we stand, what we want and what we are trying to do. Karl, and many like him, do not 'understand' 'public' because (let me guess !) a strong fear of government controls on the Internet is a very important, close to the central, part of their world view about the phenomenon of Internet. I do not like/understand the term 'user' because 1. this term defines human beings in relation to technology rather than the other way around 2. More importantly, the use of the term seeks to, in some strange way, make all those whom technology impacts as equal or, at any rate, to be at the same starting point. But all progressive socio-political discourse starts with the premise that people are structurally located differently, and thus are to be treated as different for all or most social analysis. Karl's 'user' looks to be a very empowered individual (of course ungendered, for one), shaped from ethics (and possibilities) of individual responsibilities and individual freedoms, to which the 'collective' could, more likely than not, mostly only cause loses of these freedoms. We all recognize this ideology, and I am not being dismissive about it. I too speak from a ideology. I am sorry, but like all social progressives, I am unable to accept this world view. I know and work among people to whom it is (further) demeaning and humiliating to be told that it is basically all upto them to exercise their choices and freedoms, and so bad it they cannot. We are convinced that these people are subject to structural disadvantage, and our daily social, economic and political processes (including perhaps discussions on this list) feed and constantly renew these structures that cause disadvantage. The only way is to intervene with means to correct these structural disadvantages - and one of the principal means for that is the political process, and, further, the concept of 'public'. I would, tentatively, define public as something to which people (citizens) have some kind of a universalistic right of appropriation. No social term can be defined exactly and in all encompassing manner (that is more in the technical realm). Like any other right, such rights of appropriation of the public are never absolute. To cut it short, and come to the discussion on the 'publicness of the Internet', we know that there are public parks where the right of appropriation is more or less unhindered and there are public utilities (telecommunications have always been a public utility) where this right is considerably qualified (you may have to pay something for use etc). My main contention is, when we have rather fruitfully employed the term 'public' in the pre-Internet world, and the term is basic to a democratic system, why should it suddenly become meaningless in the Internet space? I think it is techno-utopianism to look at Internet space as something basically different in terms of its socio-political categories, and is ideologically based. The only way, IMHO, to make progress on the net neutrality issue is to explore and fix publicness characteristics of the Internet, and from there to explore a model of Internet regulation that best balances the needs of innovation, economic growth, equity, social justice etc. Equally important for a global group like ours, is to differentiate interests of developing countries, and groups otherwise marginalized, and not club everyone together as 'users', in order to specifically see what kind of net neutrality or 'public internet' regulations serves all these deferential interests. Parminder On Sunday 15 August 2010 05:03 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/14/2010 03:58 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > >>> However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public >>> internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or >>> operated by a public entity. >> >> As with many words in the dictionary, numerous meanings exist but >> reasonably intelligent users and writers are able to distinguish them >> and convey clear meanings > > "clear meanings"? Clear to whom? > > The argument you are making is one that says "public internet" and > "internet" are of identical meaning, which is to say that the word > "public" is a meaningless and thus superfluous adjective. > > On the other hand some of us read words, particularly words of legal > import, so that every word has meaning and no word is surplus. Which > is to say that the word "public" in the phrase "public internet" is a > word that has meaning. > > But you missed my larger point - it is very possible, even perhaps > likely, that those who author statements of net neutrality couched > with phrases such as "public internet" actually mean their statements > only to apply to those parts that are owned or operated by a public > entity. Humpty Dumpty famously asked who is the master, Humpty or the > word. When performing exegesis on statements by Google or Verizon or > others about network neutrality it would be useful to remember that > the authors of those statements are using extremely careful language > to navigate very tricky policy waters and that those authors are the > masters of their own words. > > Regarding your dismissal of a provider who traffic engineers their > network routers to give priority to domain name query and response > packets: Why should not a provider build a network that makes their > network feel more responsive to users? What is wrong with that? > > And, finally, you dismiss the ability of people to make their own > decisions (or to delegate those choices to their chosen agents) and > thus say that there should be no choice possible at all because to do > so simply empowers the rich over the poor. > > That strikes me as an argument that says that people are unable to > live their own lives and that they must depend upon protection from > those with more expertise or time. That was the same argument used by > Queen Victoria and King Leopold to justify their imperial policies > over the people in their African colonies in the 19th century. It is > not an argument that I am particularly willing to accept. > > I am not opposed to protective agencies and even paternalistic > institutions - I do believe that governments, and citizens under those > governments, do have duties of those kinds. However, I do object to > such agencies and institutions when they do not allow individuals to > opt out and chose their own path. > > The internet is not free. If people are not allowed to chose the way > that they want to use the internet then those choices will be made by > others. And more often than not those choices will be made by those > who view the internet as a means to make money from users or, as we > are beginning to increasingly see, as a means to impose governmental > policies. > > User choice is not some sort of anathema; user choice works just fine > in other areas of life. Are you opposed to services such as Federal > Express of UPS that provided tiered package delivery services for > tiered prices? > > Again I ask, if the knobs and levers that control how traffic is > passed across the internet are not knobs and levers that can be > manipulated by users then who is going to have the power to do that > manipulation and to what ends? > > --karl-- > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 15 01:38:11 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:08:11 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C677D43.5020603@itforchange.net> On Sunday 15 August 2010 09:53 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > let's add in the phrase 'open Internet' which actually means something... Why dont you tell us what it means Lee, :). (preferably in socio-political terms and not technical in deference to the fact that this group is primarily involved with socio-political discourse as a basis of policy engagements/ advocacy) > as opposed to the term dumped by US courts and now by its inventor, Google. > ________________________________________ > From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions > > This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: > > Internet: > > Public Internet: > > Internet as a public good: > > Net Neutrality: > > > > > On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. > > Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Sun Aug 15 04:43:25 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:43:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C6549A9.4010409@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Thank You for Your clear thoughts. However, I do not as yet see, why such deals should invalidate the concept of multi-stakeholderism, the idea of which is to involve all stakeholders to identify problems and solve them together, if possible, for thr common interest. If some actors prefer to give preference to their private interests or to the national interest in individual cases this would still not mean that the public interest could not be better served by a multi-stakeholder approach in general. In a multi-stakeholder approach, the privatization of public interests is less likely to happen. It is up to the not-profit stakeholders whether to engage with for-profit actors and thus give legitimacy to the joint undertaking in particular cases. Wolfgang Benedek Am 13.08.10 15:33 schrieb "parminder" unter : Hi All The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not what that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my hopes with political governance to ensure public interest prevails rather than depend on deals between companies which are, and expected to be, based on private interests. (Though the danger is that this deal could be a trail balloon by the US establishment, which even though it knows it is against people's interest vis a vis that of the big corporates, may still go with a deal that doesnt protect network neutrality because overall geo-economic interests of developed countries lie with sticking to backing these global corporates. This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be development agenda.) Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic interest and private interest. Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. As Carlton notes in his email Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems built to give political respectability to private interests. Parminder On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Parminder: I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and show preference in very business-like practical ways for those customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for me. We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One of them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!] My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency trumps. Carlton From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Carlton On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of influencing it? The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more egalitarian world. You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. Parminder Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 To: , Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sun Aug 15 06:51:40 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 03:51:40 -0700 Subject: [governance] Re: network neutrality and the public internet In-Reply-To: <4C677C3D.1030206@itforchange.net> References: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> <4C677C3D.1030206@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C67C6BC.1070300@cavebear.com> Perhaps I expressed myself imperfectly in my prior note to which you replied. My initial purpose when I engaged in this thread was merely to express a warning that one should not unquestionably accept the phrase "public internet" as having one and only one meaning; that the expressions of net neutrality couched in terms of the "public internet" may be more constrictive than many of us hope. I remain unconvinced that those who wrote the Google/Verizon statement were necessarily using that phrase in the broad scope that is often given to that phrase by some people here. In my follow-up I noted that the deeper question of who gets the power to control of the many ways in which the net (or more specifically, network routers) may handle packets. Given that I daily deal with the technical nuts-and-bolts of the internet at the deepest levels I perceive the concrete reality of the mechanisms used to classify different packets and given them different queue priorities or send them down different paths. So I daily face concrete questions regarding who has the authority to manipulate these mechanisms. I recognize, and agree with you, that many of us, particularly many of us who live in the US, have a strong individualistic point of view. That is quite true. It is neither right nor wrong, it simply is. I suggested in my prior email that the even in highly consensus-driven social systems we ought to govern the internet in a way that leaves open the door to be different. In other words, those who wish to be individualists ought to be able to use the internet in the way they see fit and not be coerced into constrained channels. (Such people may feel social repercussions as a result of their choice; I'm saying is that there ought to be no *legal* barrier.) It was never my intention to suggest that groups of people ought not to be free to act in concert or to delegate choices as to network neutrality (or non-neutrality) to larger groups, such as governmental bodies, unions, or associations. It is my own feeling that most people on the internet - users - will chose that course either through explicit choice or by silently accepting such a regime. The key, however, is that it be clear that the authority for such collective action or governance derives from the voluntary, and alterable, choices of the members, the individuals. This notion is nothing new - It is the idea underlying many modern democratic societies. In the language used in the latter 1700's the phrase for this was "consent of the governed". The reason the internet has grown is that it does not (at least until recently) constrain innovation at the edges. Groups do not innovate - rather innovation begins with an act by an individual making a choice to do something differently than others are doing. It would be sad if we outlawed innovation on the internet. And one of the ways that innovation may occur is when people are given the means to take control of the ways that their internet packets are handled as those packets cross all or part of the net. As usual my touchstone on this is my "First Law of the Internet": First Law of the Internet http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Aug 15 08:06:03 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:36:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C67D82B.4070408@itforchange.net> Dear Wolfgang, I have no problem with the idea of multistakeholderism, if two conditions are met 1. It works within a democratic polity as an adjunct to it, and does not try to seek to supplant it 2. The important issue of very strong differences in the power of different actors in a multistakeholder setting is always kept foremost, and sufficiently factored into multistakeholder structures. In this regard, the immense power of mega-corporates and there proclivity to use multistakeholder platforms both for stalling public interest policy making, and legitimising their own lobbying activities should be carefully and evidently guarded against. As discussed in emails following the one you responded to, I most often see that multistakeholderism is preached and practised outside the above two important conditions, and this is my problem with this concept. Thanks for your engagement with this discussion. Parminder On Sunday 15 August 2010 02:13 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > Thank You for Your clear thoughts. However, I do not as yet see, why > such deals should invalidate the concept of multi-stakeholderism, the > idea of which is to involve all stakeholders to identify problems and > solve them together, if possible, for thr common interest. If some > actors prefer to give preference to their private interests or to the > national interest in individual cases this would still not mean that > the public interest could not be better served by a multi-stakeholder > approach in general. In a multi-stakeholder approach, the > privatization of public interests is less likely to happen. It is up > to the not-profit stakeholders whether to engage with for-profit > actors and thus give legitimacy to the joint undertaking in particular > cases. > > Wolfgang Benedek > > > Am 13.08.10 15:33 schrieb "parminder" unter : > > Hi All > > The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not > what that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my > hopes with political governance to ensure public interest prevails > rather than depend on deals between companies which are, and > expected to be, based on private interests. (Though the danger is > that this deal could be a trail balloon by the US establishment, > which even though it knows it is against people's interest vis a > vis that of the big corporates, may still go with a deal that > doesnt protect network neutrality because overall geo-economic > interests of developed countries lie with sticking to backing > these global corporates. This is the reason that network > neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big > and central part of what would be development agenda.) > > Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The > principal lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the > foggy business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, > and clearly understand and accept the long established > distinctions between pulbic interest and private interest. > > Companies represent private interests. That is what they are > supposed to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact > there is nothing wrong for them to do it, as long as they are > within legal boundaries. That is the nature of the private sector, > definitionally. > > On the other hand, civil society and governments are public > interest players. Both sectors at diferent times can have > different problems about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be > engaged with. However the essential difference between private > interest players (businesses) and public interest players (civil > society and governments) has always been clear, and we would be > doing great disservice to the global society if in the name of > multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. > > As Carlton notes in his email > > Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications > of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. > Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of > money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is > quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be > working for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges > government's singular authority by complementing it with other > forms of interest representation, rather than multistakeholderism, > a concept which seems built to give political respectability to > private interests. > > Parminder > > > > > On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > > > > Parminder: > > I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you > badly misread my misgivings. To report what is – and > recognize the nature of things – can hardly be construed as > endorsement. Sober commentators have already weighed in on > the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in > the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical > issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to > follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. > > > > I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications > business, pre Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order > that broke up Ma Bell. And it is from certain knowledge that > I can declare that telecommunications companies have always > had preferred customers and show preference in very > business-like practical ways for those customers. Routine > business transactions that hardly ever see the light of a > [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion > of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally > sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other > seller, volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging > that there is a marketplace that has certain behaviours is > untenable. At least, for me. > > > > We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. > One of them is to make personal statements that undergird our > opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t > want to belong to any club that will have me as a member”. > The sentiment expressed has a larger embrace and this is > where you’ll find me. Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple > products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products and I > will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust. > Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its > public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It > was fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in > recent past!] > > > > My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big > picture response, whether it involves politicians driven to > act for fear of losing votes or acting in collaboration with > other interests out of genuine belief. This is the basis for > my argument that transparency trumps. > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > *From:* parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > > > Carlton > > On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: > > Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN > issue for civil society is transparency. > > > No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in > Ginger's subsequent email "*That way, as Americans lose access > to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." > * > How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have > no way of influencing it? > > > > The competitive free market will always devise methods, > processes and activities intended to create advantage for one > or other player. There will always be players willing to make > investments to pump their wares; something for free that > others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" > text messaging for x period. > > > > Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS > Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were > apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK > fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and > sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit > without those apps. And the smart decision to freely > distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making > a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch > in marketing imagination. > > > > Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine > Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And > this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone > applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what > vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or > Internet space. > > However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible > excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of > argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more > bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on > one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the > structural implications of vertical integrations in the > network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more > egalitarian world. > > You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with > its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive > walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple > products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple > products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil > society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the > deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the > progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of > those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives > are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. > > In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a > market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical > social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, > it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without > discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the > Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple > act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. > > Parminder > > > > > > > Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. > > > > Carlton > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter > > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Ian and Parminder, > > > > This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the > line is > > between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' > which David > > mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in > > Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get > everyone > > hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. > > > > It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it > sounds more > > like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts > customers. My > > serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. > > > > Where do you see this 'line'? > > > > I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more > > productive in Vilnius. > > > > Best, Ginger > > > > On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > > > Hi Parminder, > > > > Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this > too. It is common > > practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) > to create free > > zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume > charges and/or > > traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody > here seems to > > want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a > distortion of a free > > market and an open Internet at the same time and should be > attracting a lot > > more attention. > > > > The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other > distortions and > > potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) > > > > > > I agree - we should discuss. > > > > > > Ian Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: parminder > > > Reply-To: > , > parminder > > > Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 > > To: > > , > > > Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles > > > > Hi All > > > > The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is > providing Facebook free > > of data download charges in India (apparently, only > for 2 months). I > > understand this is happening in other countries too; i > read about > > something similar in Russia. > > > > I consider this as an outright violation of net > neutrality (NN). > > > > Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in > some countries like > > Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who > know and > > understand these country specific arrangements well if > such a thing as > > above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. > > > > If indeed developing countries are to have any chance > of being a part of > > shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we > should start > > testing such cases as above with the telecom > regulatory authourities, > > and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. > > > > Parminder > > > > PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at > > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- > > own-net-neutrality-deal.ars > > > > > > It appears that there is some move to treat wireless > or mobile based > > Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired > Internet. > > > > As the largest market players - here, Verizon and > Google - seek to > > arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the > only other party > > to it is the US gov, itself representing very > partisan, and largely > > dominant, interests, as far as the global public > Internet is concerned, > > the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where > does the IGF, and > > indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that > we need to ponder > > upon. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 15 08:47:56 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 14:47:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Light Regulation References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BBA5@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F4D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> On Saturday 14 August 2010 03:03 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Another view on the NN 'wars". http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead My reading of the article is that the author argues for something like a "light Internet regulation", inspired by old fashioned "communication law" (which is telecommunications law). He says that heavy regulation makes no sense, but no-regulation is also not acceptable anymore. This should be discussed. Even more: The Internet does not know territorial boundaries. A national regulation has to be put into an international context. It makes no sense to argue for an "unregulated Internet" abroad and a "regulated Internet" at home. My question is whether the "Washington Post" has switched sides and argues now for an "International light Internet regulation", inspired by the international telecommunication regulation (and the ITU?), which the US government opposed for many years? 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 10:46:02 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:46:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C67D82B.4070408@itforchange.net> References: <4C67D82B.4070408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 8/15/10, parminder wrote: > Dear Wolfgang, > I have no problem with the idea of multistakeholderism, if two > conditions are met > 1. It works within a democratic polity as an adjunct to it, and does not > try to seek to supplant it This above is a reasonable condition, given that replacement of democracy by multi-stakeholderism (no matter to what extent it may or may not mimic democracy) is a replacement/revolution against democracy. Per the globally agreed-to Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the only legitimate source of power is power derived from the people as a whole, i.e. republics and democracies. See Article 21, UN Declaration of Human Rights, http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#atop Furthermore, everyone has the equal right to participate not only in elections but also in public service. THE UNACCEPTABLE CONSEQUENCE OF LEAVING INTERNET GOVERNANCE TO UNRESTRAINED CONTRACTUAL FREEDOM: If Parminder and I, whether we be poor or billionaires, sign a contract that results in KARL's rights becoming second-class, such as by increasing our internet speed at his expense, Karl is now a second-class internet "citizen" and he's had nothing to say about it. I will only say that this abuse of contract violates virtually every norm, law, principle and right related to the fundamental equality of human beings, the fundamental right of democracy, and even violates business contract law, which provides as one of its cardinal laws that contracts only affect the parties that SIGN them, not third parties. (Third parties in narrow situations may BENEFIT from a contract but certainly may not have their rights negatively impacted against their consent). The above is just like a private contract between two corporations to make sectors of public internet users into second class or third class citizens. It's completely illegitimate. Now, if one were to further suggest that it is undesirable for the government to intervene to protect equality in situations like the above, or that the government is even powerless to do so, is a remarkable and even shocking proposition. Unlike Karl's framework in which users are left to themselves, what we are really talking about here is two or more big users getting together and negatively impacting the rights and experiences of those not allowed at the table of democracy. The one and only way to fudge with the above principles prohibiting the creation of second class citizens that has been able to survive at all is illustrated by this example: There is a desire for extra speed (for example, on highway toll-ways) and a fast lane is constructed and passes for that fast lane are made available for purchase on an EQUAL basis by all people (ignoring the reality that some can't afford this "equality.") Here again, the principle of equality is preserved though only by ignoring economic inequalities. In any case, this seeming exception is VERY controversial in all of my experience. In a nutshell, contracts can not impact negatively the rights of people who don't agree to that contract. Yet this is one major type of contract being contemplated. OF course freedom of contract exists under the assumption that it doesn't hurt anybody else, as it usually doesn't. So, Karl suggests that "users" should dictate the form of the internet, and I reply that this can only apply when users are impacting ONLY themselves and no other parties. Karl also suggests that "unequal" treatment is desirable or necessary sometimes. Here again, private contract is not a legitimate way to set up inequality. Assuming it is ever legitimate to set up second class citizenship in any respect, that would be a public policy and rights question for government. Of course, absent effective public intervention, those with market power may succeed in setting up inequality and negatively impacting others' rights and experiences, but the existence of any such examples, if any, begs the question of their legality and legitimacy. After all, things like slavery have persisted in the private sector to this day despite universal condemnation by law in the public sector. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 11:00:20 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 11:00:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Light Regulation In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F4D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BBA5@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F4D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: One principle with global applicability and agreement is that freedom of contract does not include the right to negatively impact the rights of persons who have never agreed to the contract in question, much less signed it. This would seem to be fatal to a topical subclass of contracts now at issue where large corporations act or propose to allocate to themselves superior rights or service at the expense of everyone else. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/15/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > On Saturday 14 August 2010 03:03 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Another view > on the NN 'wars". > > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081206521.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead [snip] > This should be discussed. Even more: The Internet does not know territorial > boundaries. A national regulation has to be put into an international > context. It makes no sense to argue for an "unregulated Internet" abroad and > a "regulated Internet" at home. My question is whether the "Washington Post" > has switched sides and argues now for an "International light Internet > regulation", inspired by the international telecommunication regulation (and > the ITU?), which the US government opposed for many years? -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 15 12:38:39 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:38:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C677D43.5020603@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<4C677D43.5020603@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Sure: Inte ________________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions On Sunday 15 August 2010 09:53 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > let's add in the phrase 'open Internet' which actually means something... Why dont you tell us what it means Lee, :). (preferably in socio-political terms and not technical in deference to the fact that this group is primarily involved with socio-political discourse as a basis of policy engagements/ advocacy) > as opposed to the term dumped by US courts and now by its inventor, Google. > ________________________________________ > From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions > > This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: > > Internet: > > Public Internet: > > Internet as a public good: > > Net Neutrality: > > > > > On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. > > Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 13:54:49 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 10:54:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: [OIA] Google and the Search for the Future Message-ID: <5485C7C80F5E4489AEAD3526DD6146D3@userPC> I think this article is of more general interest as it points to the range of Internet relad issues that are emerging at least from Google's perspective--but of course, Google is, at least for the moment, at the very centre of much of that world. M -----Original Message----- From: oia-bounces at lists.bway.net [mailto:oia-bounces at lists.bway.net] On Behalf Of Charles Brown Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 10:32 AM To: OIA List Subject: [OIA] Google and the Search for the Future Some thoughtful discussion for a change via a MSM conduit. Hat tip: Frank Collucio Google and the Search for the Future The Web icon's CEO on the mobile computing revolution, the future of newspapers, and privacy in the digital age. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.ht ml?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop#articleTabs%3Darticle By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR. To some, Google has been looking a bit sallow lately. The stock is down. Where once everything seemed to go the company's way, along came Apple's iPhone, launching a new wave of Web growth on a platform that largely bypassed the browser and Google's search box. The "app" revolution was going to spell an end to Google's dominance of Web advertising. But that's all so six-months-ago. When a group of Journal editors sat down with Eric Schmidt on a recent Friday, Google's CEO sounded nothing like a man whose company was facing a midlife crisis, let alone intimations of mortality. For one thing, just a couple days earlier, Google had publicly estimated that 200,000 Android smartphones were being activated daily by cell carriers on behalf of customers. That's a doubling in just three months. Since the beginning of the year, Android phones have been outselling iPhones by an increasing clip and seem destined soon to outstrip Apple in global market share. True, Apple sells its phones for luscious margins, while Google gives away Android to handset makers for free. But not to worry, says Mr. Schmidt: "You get a billion people doing something, there's lots of ways to make money. Absolutely, trust me. We'll get lots of money for it." "In general in technology," he says, "if you own a platform that's valuable, you can monetize it." Example: Google is obliged to share with Apple search revenue generated by iPhone users. On Android, Google gets to keep 100%. That difference alone, says Mr. Schmidt, is more than enough to foot the bill for Android's continued development. And coming soon is Chrome OS, which Google hopes will do in tablets and netbooks what Android is doing in smartphones, i.e., give Google a commanding share of the future and leave, in this case, Microsoft in the dust. Can it all be so easy? Google's stock price has fallen nearly $250 since the beginning of the year. Financial pundits have started to ask skeptical questions, wondering why it doesn't give more of its ample cash back to shareholders in the form of buybacks and dividends. Some suspect that all that temptation merely encourages Mr. Schmidt, along with founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page-the triumvirate running the company-to splurge on gimmicky ideas that never pay off. Fortune magazine recently called Google a "cash cow" and suggested more attention be paid to milking it rather than running off in search of the next big thing. But to hear Mr. Schmidt tell it, the real challenge is one not yet on most investors' minds: how to preserve Google's franchise in Web advertising, the source of almost all its profits, when "search" is outmoded. The day is coming when the Google search box-and the activity known as Googling-no longer will be at the center of our online lives. Then what? "We're trying to figure out what the future of search is," Mr. Schmidt acknowledges. "I mean that in a positive way. We're still happy to be in search, believe me. But one idea is that more and more searches are done on your behalf without you needing to type." "I actually think most people don't want Google to answer their questions," he elaborates. "They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next." Let's say you're walking down the street. Because of the info Google has collected about you, "we know roughly who you are, roughly what you care about, roughly who your friends are." Google also knows, to within a foot, where you are. Mr. Schmidt leaves it to a listener to imagine the possibilities: If you need milk and there's a place nearby to get milk, Google will remind you to get milk. It will tell you a store ahead has a collection of horse-racing posters, that a 19th-century murder you've been reading about took place on the next block. Says Mr. Schmidt, a generation of powerful handheld devices is just around the corner that will be adept at surprising you with information that you didn't know you wanted to know. "The thing that makes newspapers so fundamentally fascinating-that serendipity-can be calculated now. We can actually produce it electronically," Mr. Schmidt says. Mr. Schmidt obviously has an eye to his audience, which this day consists of folks with an abiding devotion to the newspaper business. He speaks in sorrowful tones about the "economic disaster that is the American newspaper." He assures us that in the coming deluge trusted "brands" will be more important than ever. Just as quickly, though, he adds that whether the winners will be new brands or existing brands remains to be seen. On one thing, however, Google is willing to bet: "The only way the problem [of insufficient revenue for news gathering] is going to be solved is by increasing monetization, and the only way I know of to increase monetization is through targeted ads. That's our business." Mr. Schmidt is a believer in targeted advertising because, simply, he's a believer in targeted everything: "The power of individual targeting-the technology will be so good it will be very hard for people to watch or consume something that has not in some sense been tailored for them." That's a bit scary when you think about it. But for investors and executives the big question, of course, is which companies will control these opportunities. Google may see itself as friend and helper to the media business, but it also clearly sees itself in control of the targeting information. Says Mr. Schmidt: "As you go from the search box [to the next phase of Google], you really want to go from syntax to semantics, from what you typed to what you meant. And that's basically the role of [Artificial Intelligence]. I think we will be the world leader in that for a long time." Between here and there, though, the company faces ever-growing legal, political and regulatory obstacles. The net neutrality debate, which Google has led, has taken a sudden turn that has many of its former allies in the "public interest" sector shouting "treason." What was most striking about the set of net neut "principles" Google produced this week with former antagonist Verizon was that they didn't apply to wireless. "The issues of wireless versus wireline gets very messy," Mr. Schmidt told one news site. "And that's really an FCC issue, not a Google issue." Wait. Isn't the future of the Internet wireless these days? Isn't wireless the very basis of the new partnership between Google and Verizon, built on promoting Google's Android software? But Google has now broken ranks with its allies and dared to speak about the sheer impracticality of net neutrality on mobile networks where demand is likely to outstrip capacity for the foreseeable future. If that weren't about to become a sticky political wicket for the company, it also faces growing antitrust, privacy and patent scrutiny, fanned by a growing phalanx of Beltway opponents, the latest being Larry Ellison and Oracle. "There's a set of people who are intrinsic oppositionists to everything Google does," Mr. Schmidt acknowledges resignedly. "The first opponent will be Microsoft." Mr. Schmidt is familiar with the game-as chief technology officer of Sun Microsystems in the 1990s, he was a chief fomenter of the antitrust assault on Bill Gates & Co. Now that the tables are turned, he says, Google will persevere and prevail by doing what he says Microsoft failed to do-make sure its every move is "good for consumers" and "fair" to competitors. Uh huh. Google takes a similarly generous view of its own motives on the politically vexed issue of privacy. Mr. Schmidt says regulation is unnecessary because Google faces such strong incentives to treat its users right, since they will walk away the minute Google does anything with their personal information they find "creepy." Really? Some might be skeptical that a user with, say, a thousand photos on Picasa would find it so easy to walk away. Or a guy with 10 years of emails on Gmail. Or a small business owner who has come to rely on Google Docs as an alternative to Microsoft Office. Isn't stickiness-even slightly extortionate stickiness-what these Google services aim for? Mr. Schmidt is surely right, though, that the questions go far beyond Google. "I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time," he says. He predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends' social media sites. "I mean we really have to think about these things as a society," he adds. "I'm not even talking about the really terrible stuff, terrorism and access to evil things," he says. Not that Google is a doubter of the value of social media. Mr. Schmidt awards Facebook his highest accolade, calling it a "company of consequence." And though "there is a lot of hot air, a lot of venture money" in the sector right now, he predicts that one or two more "companies of consequence" will be born among the horde of new players just coming to life now. A skeptic might wonder whether, despite present glory, Google itself might yet prove a flash in the pan. The company has enormous technological confidence. Mr. Schmidt describes how YouTube, its video-serving site, almost "took down" the company in its early days, thanks to the swelling outflow of video dispatched from its servers to users around the globe. Salvation was the "proxy cache"-lots of local servers around the world holding the most popular videos. "The technology that Google invented allows us to put those things very close to you," says Mr. Schmidt. "It was a tremendous technological achievement." But with YouTube, as with lots of Google projects, there remains the question of how to make money. Google captured the search wave and shows every sign of positioning itself successfully for the mobile wave. As for the waves after that, your guess may be as good as Mr. Schmidt's. Mr. Jenkins writes the Journal's weekly Business World column. -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Sun Aug 15 13:57:12 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 12:57:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: network neutrality and the public internet In-Reply-To: <4C67C6BC.1070300@cavebear.com> References: <4C6727DB.9080007@cavebear.com> <4C677C3D.1030206@itforchange.net> <4C67C6BC.1070300@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BBD4@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Well said! Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 5:52 AM To: parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Re: network neutrality and the public internet Perhaps I expressed myself imperfectly in my prior note to which you replied. My initial purpose when I engaged in this thread was merely to express a warning that one should not unquestionably accept the phrase "public internet" as having one and only one meaning; that the expressions of net neutrality couched in terms of the "public internet" may be more constrictive than many of us hope. I remain unconvinced that those who wrote the Google/Verizon statement were necessarily using that phrase in the broad scope that is often given to that phrase by some people here. In my follow-up I noted that the deeper question of who gets the power to control of the many ways in which the net (or more specifically, network routers) may handle packets. Given that I daily deal with the technical nuts-and-bolts of the internet at the deepest levels I perceive the concrete reality of the mechanisms used to classify different packets and given them different queue priorities or send them down different paths. So I daily face concrete questions regarding who has the authority to manipulate these mechanisms. I recognize, and agree with you, that many of us, particularly many of us who live in the US, have a strong individualistic point of view. That is quite true. It is neither right nor wrong, it simply is. I suggested in my prior email that the even in highly consensus-driven social systems we ought to govern the internet in a way that leaves open the door to be different. In other words, those who wish to be individualists ought to be able to use the internet in the way they see fit and not be coerced into constrained channels. (Such people may feel social repercussions as a result of their choice; I'm saying is that there ought to be no *legal* barrier.) It was never my intention to suggest that groups of people ought not to be free to act in concert or to delegate choices as to network neutrality (or non-neutrality) to larger groups, such as governmental bodies, unions, or associations. It is my own feeling that most people on the internet - users - will chose that course either through explicit choice or by silently accepting such a regime. The key, however, is that it be clear that the authority for such collective action or governance derives from the voluntary, and alterable, choices of the members, the individuals. This notion is nothing new - It is the idea underlying many modern democratic societies. In the language used in the latter 1700's the phrase for this was "consent of the governed". The reason the internet has grown is that it does not (at least until recently) constrain innovation at the edges. Groups do not innovate - rather innovation begins with an act by an individual making a choice to do something differently than others are doing. It would be sad if we outlawed innovation on the internet. And one of the ways that innovation may occur is when people are given the means to take control of the ways that their internet packets are handled as those packets cross all or part of the net. As usual my touchstone on this is my "First Law of the Internet": First Law of the Internet http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000059.html + Every person shall be free to use the Internet in any way that is privately beneficial without being publicly detrimental. - The burden of demonstrating public detriment shall be on those who wish to prevent the private use. - Such a demonstration shall require clear and convincing evidence of public detriment. - The public detriment must be of such degree and extent as to justify the suppression of the private activity. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sun Aug 15 16:19:26 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:19:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on mobiles Message-ID: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> Hi, I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but devolves in a dictatorship of personality. Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions in environments where there is no overarching constitutional instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity building to bring in others. Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current governance models to overtake it and destroy it. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Sun Aug 15 17:04:00 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:04:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on In-Reply-To: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> Message-ID: <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> Dear Avri Perhaps I gave the wrong impression. When I said I don't like the term 'multi-stakeholderism' I simply meant that the 'ism' at the end of multi-stakeholder makes me feel that we have become more pre-occupied with the form of the participation than its content. I am completely in favour of multi-stakeholder participation in all policy processes and I don't feel that the multi-stakeholder model contravenes democracy. My concerns are that: - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil society, government and business. - this obscures diversity within each of those groups - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy way to brand processes as being democratic I agree with you that it is way of achieving greater democracy. But I don't think we should be uncritical. There is still room for improvement. Mainstreaming or integration of gender into every programme and policy resulted in a lot of token references to gender equality and in many cases in less attention being given to equal rights or women's empowerment. We want to avoid a similar trend... a process is not necessarily going to be democratic simply because it is multi-stakeholder. I wrote this about 5 years ago. We were having similar debates then :) http://www.apc.org/en/news/access/world/multi-stakeholder-participation-and-ict-policy-pro Anriette On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 16:19 -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders > in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of > the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the > very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional > and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to > me. > > Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention > to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. > > Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when > it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need > to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other > instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and > that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. > > Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority > wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are > hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all > the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy > without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but > devolves in a dictatorship of personality. > > Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions > in environments where there is no overarching constitutional > instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or > group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it > sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. > The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in > discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or > not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, > outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who > can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those > who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity > building to bring in others. > > Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is > fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as > ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be > global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to > force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To > give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of > telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the > first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been > possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still > hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the > Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current > governance models to overtake it and destroy it. > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 17:43:35 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 17:43:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on In-Reply-To: <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: The phrase "greater democracy" is only meaningful if a transition from representative democracy to direct democracy is envisioned. Multistakeholder-ism may be a move in the direction of democracy in a sense -- if the baseline is purely business/government and one is adding some civil society groups -- but multistakeholderism is not democratic, and thus nothing to content oneself with, for this basic reason: Democracy is rule by ALL the people. Aristocracy is rule by a subset of less than all the people (not through elected representatives of all the people.) Multistakeholderism is thus a form of aristocracy, in which some civil society groups, and not others, get a voice. That voice is often not their true voice, either, because in many cases those voices can and are replaced if and when they become too outspoken. All too often the civil society persons asked to testify in Washington DC, for example, are most sycophantic and establishment-friendly, and don't really have a door open to grassroots civil society. When business corporations are given a vote in multistakeholderism, this vote is one that they absolutely don't have in a real democracy. All of the natural person individuals within a corporation have votes, so why indeed would or should individuals who associate with a corporation get an additional weight to their vote nobody else gets just because their corporation has a seat at the table? Tallying up the real support that corporations have in terms of numbers of human beings, they are given something akin to a one thousand percent or more increase in voting power, whenever the stakeholder composition is anything like, say, 1/3 business, 1/3 government/regulatory and 1/3 civil society. The point at which multi-stakeholderism actually becomes close to approximating the accountability of democratic representatives is the point at which business interests will abandon that multi-stakeholder model and take their chances with elected and unelected governments, which they then stand a better chance at controlling the outcomes in their favor I'm not the least bit cynical, but am only stating a fundamental point of law in layperson's terms, when I say that corporations exist solely to make a profit and have no essential social ethics, democratic values, or commitment to the public interest or even to public goods. If a corporation adopts any of these as a business strategy - the only way they CAN adopt anything - it is eternally subject to being overridden by the legal command to make a profit or else face a derivative lawsuit from shareholders for the tort of legal "waste" of corporate assets. Most simply put, the following resolves the basic question here, and decisively and conclusively so: Any agreement or contract reached by two or more parties can never legitimately affect the rights of persons who are not parties to that agreement (at a multistakeholder summit) or contract (such as Verizon and Google). Under Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there is only ONE legitimate source of political authority and that is ALL the people. Any institution that can't trace its lineage to all the people (as opposed to some subset of people) that is also negatively impacting the interests or rights of people who are themselves not represented by freely elected representatives is an institution that has usurped real authority and is running at a legitimacy deficit of 100%. Thus, private contract, or trade association or multistakeholder group can do the job it is asked to do, because it will use contracts or agreements that, by purporting to alter the rights of people not parties to those agreements, are utterly illegitimate. The only entity that can do the job is a democratically representative institution that can trace its legitimacy to ALL the people of a given jurisdiction. If it is merely inconvenient to create democratic institutions, that doesn't strike me as a worthy objection. Other than religion, the only thing people have voluntarily and consciously worked and sacrificed their lives for around the world is democracy. To have something as fundamental as the internet become non-democratic because of the perceived inconvenience of setting up democratic systems globally is something I would like to see (if it were possible) explained to any one of the millions who have sacrificed their lives for the dream of democracy or the right to vote. I imagine they woudl be indignant, yet calmly remind everyone of the Universal Declaration's adoption and expansion after WWII, perhaps reading this paragraph of the Preamble and then asking "Why would you think this process is so hard when essentially every nation in the world is committed to it??:" "Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as **a common standard** of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration **constantly in mind,** shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their*** universal and effective recognition and observance,*** both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." --Preamble to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (emphasis added ***) Multistakeholderism, if it has any power, is an abdication of the most solemn responsibilities of all states reached just after the end of the most deadly war this world has ever seen, WWII. It is not, and was not, written in an atmosphere of "unrealistic idealism." The ratifying states understood then, if not now, that attempting to affect the rights of people in one's own country, or around the world, without legitimate democrafic representation is ultimately a prescription for civil unrest or war because nobody likes not having a say, at least through freely elected representatives. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 19:02:59 2010 From: rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com (Rebecca MacKinnon) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 19:02:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Seeking non-U.S. blogs/articles re: Google/Verizon and net neutrality Message-ID: Dear friends, I'm trying to get a better sense of how different people in different parts of the world view the Google/Verizon net neutrality proposal. While a couple of lists I'm on have members from around the world who have provided some great insights, I am also hoping to find a broader range of publicly quotable and linkable material published on blogs and news websites around the world. If you have written or recently encountered articles or blog posts (in any language) that you think provide useful insight about the potential long-term global implications of the Google/Verizon proposal - in the event that something akin to what they are proposing were to be implemented in the U.S. and perhaps also in markets - or for that matter about the general significance of both broadband and wireless net neutrality for people in various countries and regions, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share any links you've got. Thanks so much!! Rebecca -- Rebecca MacKinnon Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Cell: +1-617-939-3493 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Aug 15 19:44:38 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2010 16:44:38 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I couldn't agree more. The fundamental danger of multistakeholderism is unfortunately evident in the workings of this group in relation to the IGF. Rather than seeing (and acting accordingly) that multistakeholder discussions are a prelude to policy there is the assumption that it can become the policy making process itself. The consequence is that rather than acting so that multistakeholder discussions reinforce and support democratic decision making the intent is that it acts parallel and superordinate to it with the necessary effect of hollowing out democratic governance. This has the ultimate effect of reinforcing the role and influence of the corporate sector and their compatriots among the NGO's and maginalizing the grassroots whose only avenue to participation in decision making is via democratic processes however difficult and corrupted those might be. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 2:44 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Anriette Esterhuysen Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on The phrase "greater democracy" is only meaningful if a transition from representative democracy to direct democracy is envisioned. Multistakeholder-ism may be a move in the direction of democracy in a sense -- if the baseline is purely business/government and one is adding some civil society groups -- but multistakeholderism is not democratic, and thus nothing to content oneself with, for this basic reason: Democracy is rule by ALL the people. Aristocracy is rule by a subset of less than all the people (not through elected representatives of all the people.) Multistakeholderism is thus a form of aristocracy, in which some civil society groups, and not others, get a voice. That voice is often not their true voice, either, because in many cases those voices can and are replaced if and when they become too outspoken. All too often the civil society persons asked to testify in Washington DC, for example, are most sycophantic and establishment-friendly, and don't really have a door open to grassroots civil society. When business corporations are given a vote in multistakeholderism, this vote is one that they absolutely don't have in a real democracy. All of the natural person individuals within a corporation have votes, so why indeed would or should individuals who associate with a corporation get an additional weight to their vote nobody else gets just because their corporation has a seat at the table? Tallying up the real support that corporations have in terms of numbers of human beings, they are given something akin to a one thousand percent or more increase in voting power, whenever the stakeholder composition is anything like, say, 1/3 business, 1/3 government/regulatory and 1/3 civil society. The point at which multi-stakeholderism actually becomes close to approximating the accountability of democratic representatives is the point at which business interests will abandon that multi-stakeholder model and take their chances with elected and unelected governments, which they then stand a better chance at controlling the outcomes in their favor I'm not the least bit cynical, but am only stating a fundamental point of law in layperson's terms, when I say that corporations exist solely to make a profit and have no essential social ethics, democratic values, or commitment to the public interest or even to public goods. If a corporation adopts any of these as a business strategy - the only way they CAN adopt anything - it is eternally subject to being overridden by the legal command to make a profit or else face a derivative lawsuit from shareholders for the tort of legal "waste" of corporate assets. Most simply put, the following resolves the basic question here, and decisively and conclusively so: Any agreement or contract reached by two or more parties can never legitimately affect the rights of persons who are not parties to that agreement (at a multistakeholder summit) or contract (such as Verizon and Google). Under Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights there is only ONE legitimate source of political authority and that is ALL the people. Any institution that can't trace its lineage to all the people (as opposed to some subset of people) that is also negatively impacting the interests or rights of people who are themselves not represented by freely elected representatives is an institution that has usurped real authority and is running at a legitimacy deficit of 100%. Thus, private contract, or trade association or multistakeholder group can do the job it is asked to do, because it will use contracts or agreements that, by purporting to alter the rights of people not parties to those agreements, are utterly illegitimate. The only entity that can do the job is a democratically representative institution that can trace its legitimacy to ALL the people of a given jurisdiction. If it is merely inconvenient to create democratic institutions, that doesn't strike me as a worthy objection. Other than religion, the only thing people have voluntarily and consciously worked and sacrificed their lives for around the world is democracy. To have something as fundamental as the internet become non-democratic because of the perceived inconvenience of setting up democratic systems globally is something I would like to see (if it were possible) explained to any one of the millions who have sacrificed their lives for the dream of democracy or the right to vote. I imagine they woudl be indignant, yet calmly remind everyone of the Universal Declaration's adoption and expansion after WWII, perhaps reading this paragraph of the Preamble and then asking "Why would you think this process is so hard when essentially every nation in the world is committed to it??:" "Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as **a common standard** of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration **constantly in mind,** shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their*** universal and effective recognition and observance,*** both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction." --Preamble to Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (emphasis added ***) Multistakeholderism, if it has any power, is an abdication of the most solemn responsibilities of all states reached just after the end of the most deadly war this world has ever seen, WWII. It is not, and was not, written in an atmosphere of "unrealistic idealism." The ratifying states understood then, if not now, that attempting to affect the rights of people in one's own country, or around the world, without legitimate democrafic representation is ultimately a prescription for civil unrest or war because nobody likes not having a say, at least through freely elected representatives. Paul Lehto, J.D. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 16 01:49:39 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:19:39 +0530 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> Message-ID: <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Avri I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in it. "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model " My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in this list. Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional supra-structures built over this basic norm. We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of 'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening democracy (which are very well established) from those of multistakeholderism. So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism. You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to democracy is well known, well theorised as well as practised. That is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of literature on how the Internet may be having both a positive and a negative impact on the democratic public sphere.) Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and 'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when, as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to mega-corporates. Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity still national, which means that global megacorporates are largely unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of public interest. This is what is new, which gives us even more reason to look at existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones, rather than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the malaise of unbridled corporate power even more. As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates (see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world through the Internet. Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds? Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal adversary of our advocacy efforts would change. You said, "..... people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. " The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things may not be as unfanthomable. Parminder On Monday 16 August 2010 01:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. > > Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. > > Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. > > Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but devolves in a dictatorship of personality. > > Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions in environments where there is no overarching constitutional instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity building to bring in others. > > Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current governance models to overtake it and destroy it. > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Aug 16 02:58:12 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 08:58:12 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F51@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder I really do not see big differences between "deepening dmocrcy" and "multistakeholderism". It is a little bit playing with words based on one sided interpretations of the concepts behind the words. The key issue of MS is "dialogue" among various groups on a more equal footing. MS is NOT a political decision making process. As Michael has outlined on this list, it is a "prelude" for policy decisions. In my eyes it is a rather strong prelude which more less guides the decision makers into a certain direction (risking opposition from the other stakeholders if their decision differs fundamentally from the outcome of the MS discussion). All stakeholders have different interest (and follow different mechanisms). The MS process tries to identify where common interests are and how individual interests can be realized without harming legitimate interests of others. There is no "one size fits all" model. Each Internet Governance subject can produce another MS model and there can be various "coalitions". The import thing is that in the prelude phase of a policy decision (that is in the PDP process) all voices are heard. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Gesendet: Mo 16.08.2010 07:49 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism Avri I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in it. "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model " My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in this list. Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional supra-structures built over this basic norm. We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of 'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening democracy (which are very well established) from those of multistakeholderism. So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism. You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to democracy is well known, well theorised as well as practised. That is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of literature on how the Internet may be having both a positive and a negative impact on the democratic public sphere.) Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and 'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when, as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to mega-corporates. Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity still national, which means that global megacorporates are largely unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of public interest. This is what is new, which gives us even more reason to look at existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones, rather than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the malaise of unbridled corporate power even more. As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates (see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world through the Internet. Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds? Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal adversary of our advocacy efforts would change. You said, "..... people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. " The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things may not be as unfanthomable. Parminder On Monday 16 August 2010 01:49 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi, I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but devolves in a dictatorship of personality. Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions in environments where there is no overarching constitutional instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity building to bring in others. Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current governance models to overtake it and destroy it. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 16 03:00:45 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:30:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <1281906240.1639.828.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <4C68E21D.4060000@itforchange.net> Dear Anriette I agree. The real problem is not with the term 'multistakeholder participation', which is very useful and has been around for quite some time, but with 'multistakeholderism' (MSism). Especially, when MSism is sought to elevated to a new form of policy making (or as often, not making policy when required). Parminder On Monday 16 August 2010 02:34 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > Dear Avri > > Perhaps I gave the wrong impression. When I said I don't like the term > 'multi-stakeholderism' I simply meant that the 'ism' at the end of > multi-stakeholder makes me feel that we have become more pre-occupied > with the form of the participation than its content. > > I am completely in favour of multi-stakeholder participation in all > policy processes and I don't feel that the multi-stakeholder model > contravenes democracy. > > My concerns are that: > > - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude > 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil > society, government and business. > - this obscures diversity within each of those groups > - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy > way to brand processes as being democratic > > I agree with you that it is way of achieving greater democracy. But I > don't think we should be uncritical. There is still room for > improvement. Mainstreaming or integration of gender into every programme > and policy resulted in a lot of token references to gender equality and > in many cases in less attention being given to equal rights or women's > empowerment. > > We want to avoid a similar trend... a process is not necessarily going > to be democratic simply because it is multi-stakeholder. > > I wrote this about 5 years ago. We were having similar debates then :) > > http://www.apc.org/en/news/access/world/multi-stakeholder-participation-and-ict-policy-pro > > Anriette > > > > > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 16:19 -0400, Avri Doria wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders >> in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of >> the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the >> very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional >> and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to >> me. >> >> Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention >> to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. >> >> Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when >> it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need >> to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other >> instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and >> that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. >> >> Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority >> wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are >> hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all >> the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy >> without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but >> devolves in a dictatorship of personality. >> >> Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions >> in environments where there is no overarching constitutional >> instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or >> group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it >> sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. >> The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in >> discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or >> not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, >> outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who >> can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those >> who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity >> building to bring in others. >> >> Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is >> fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as >> ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be >> global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to >> force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To >> give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of >> telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the >> first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been >> possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still >> hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the >> Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current >> governance models to overtake it and destroy it. >> >> 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Mon Aug 16 05:29:50 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:29:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles In-Reply-To: <4C67D82B.4070408@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, Just to say that I do agree with Your concerns with two references: Fung, A., Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance (2001) and Malena, C., Challenges and Best Practices in the Managment and Governance of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships Involving UN and Civil Society actors (2004); A similar analysis would be welcome including to corporate actors. Kind regards Wolfgang Am 15.08.10 14:06 schrieb "parminder" unter : Dear Wolfgang, I have no problem with the idea of multistakeholderism, if two conditions are met 1. It works within a democratic polity as an adjunct to it, and does not try to seek to supplant it 2. The important issue of very strong differences in the power of different actors in a multistakeholder setting is always kept foremost, and sufficiently factored into multistakeholder structures. In this regard, the immense power of mega-corporates and there proclivity to use multistakeholder platforms both for stalling public interest policy making, and legitimising their own lobbying activities should be carefully and evidently guarded against. As discussed in emails following the one you responded to, I most often see that multistakeholderism is preached and practised outside the above two important conditions, and this is my problem with this concept. Thanks for your engagement with this discussion. Parminder On Sunday 15 August 2010 02:13 PM, Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at) wrote: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Dear Parminder, Thank You for Your clear thoughts. However, I do not as yet see, why such deals should invalidate the concept of multi-stakeholderism, the idea of which is to involve all stakeholders to identify problems and solve them together, if possible, for thr common interest. If some actors prefer to give preference to their private interests or to the national interest in individual cases this would still not mean that the public interest could not be better served by a multi-stakeholder approach in general. In a multi-stakeholder approach, the privatization of public interests is less likely to happen. It is up to the not-profit stakeholders whether to engage with for-profit actors and thus give legitimacy to the joint undertaking in particular cases. Wolfgang Benedek Am 13.08.10 15:33 schrieb "parminder" unter : Hi All The biggest thing that comes out of the Verizon-Google deal is not what that may do to the future of the Internet. I still keep my hopes with political governance to ensure public interest prevails rather than depend on deals between companies which are, and expected to be, based on private interests. (Though the danger is that this deal could be a trail balloon by the US establishment, which even though it knows it is against people's interest vis a vis that of the big corporates, may still go with a deal that doesnt protect network neutrality because overall geo-economic interests of developed countries lie with sticking to backing these global corporates. This is the reason that network neutrality is really even more a developing country issue, a big and central part of what would be development agenda.) Coming back to the principal issue I wanted to raise. The principal lesson for this deal is for all of us to reconsider the foggy business of multistakeholderism as a new policy-making form, and clearly understand and accept the long established distinctions between pulbic interest and private interest. Companies represent private interests. That is what they are supposed to do, and they will always end up doing so. In fact there is nothing wrong for them to do it, as long as they are within legal boundaries. That is the nature of the private sector, definitionally. On the other hand, civil society and governments are public interest players. Both sectors at diferent times can have different problems about their legitimacy etc, and this has to be engaged with. However the essential difference between private interest players (businesses) and public interest players (civil society and governments) has always been clear, and we would be doing great disservice to the global society if in the name of multistakeholderism we try to distinguish this difference. As Carlton notes in his email Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. It is time we also stopped pretending otherwise. We should be working for deepening democracy - a concept that challenges government's singular authority by complementing it with other forms of interest representation, rather than multistakeholderism, a concept which seems built to give political respectability to private interests. Parminder On Thursday 12 August 2010 11:51 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Parminder: I share the sentiments in your final paragraph even as you badly misread my misgivings. To report what is – and recognize the nature of things – can hardly be construed as endorsement. Sober commentators have already weighed in on the implications of what they see as Google switching sides in the NN debate. Most have come to recognize the critical issue; when loads of money is in play, priorities tend to follow the money. It is quixotic to pretend otherwise. I cut my professional teeth in the telecommunications business, pre Final Modified Judgment; Judge Green’s Order that broke up Ma Bell. And it is from certain knowledge that I can declare that telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and show preference in very business-like practical ways for those customers. Routine business transactions that hardly ever see the light of a [public] day. Coupled to this, they occupy a critical portion of the Internet ecosystem. Gut check: they are principally sellers of connectivity and bandwidth. And like every other seller, volume transactions matter. To resist acknowledging that there is a marketplace that has certain behaviours is untenable. At least, for me. We – civil society – are left with very few dogs in the hunt. One of them is to make personal statements that undergird our opposition. Grouch Marx was alleged to have said “I don’t want to belong to any club that will have me as a member”. The sentiment expressed has a larger embrace and this is where you’ll find me. Ginger’s response to Apple and Apple products is part of that piece; I own no Apple products and I will never buy an Iphone. Another is stoking public disgust. Because even the most rapacious corporation is mindful of its public image. Sometimes, even more so than politicians! [It was fascinating to watch the public contortions of BP in recent past!] My position is that this ‘knowing’ is what fuels the big picture response, whether it involves politicians driven to act for fear of losing votes or acting in collaboration with other interests out of genuine belief. This is the basis for my argument that transparency trumps. Carlton From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2010 8:49 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Carlton On Wednesday 11 August 2010 04:36 AM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: Ginger hit the nail squarely on its head; the crux of the NN issue for civil society is transparency. No, transparency is hardly enough. a quote from a quote in Ginger's subsequent email "That way, as Americans lose access to the free and open Internet, they can visibly watch it go away." How does it matter if I know something is happening if I have no way of influencing it? The competitive free market will always devise methods, processes and activities intended to create advantage for one or other player. There will always be players willing to make investments to pump their wares; something for free that others are charging for is a tried and true method, ala "free" text messaging for x period. Lowering the barrier to entry or participation is another. MS Windows took pole position in the OS space because there were apps driving its market penetration; a readily available SDK fueled the spread. Case in point: despite the hype and sleekness of the Iphone, it wouldn't have been such a hit without those apps. And the smart decision to freely distribute its SDK. Putting some 'skin in the game' by making a popular hi-traffic app available for free is not a stretch in marketing imagination. Even in terms of commercial regulation, why does then EU fine Microsoft Billions of dollars for bundling IE with its OS? And this when market distortions vis a vis stand alone applications like OS and browsers is not one tenth of what vertical integration and bundling would do in the network or Internet space. However, if one doesnt believe in need to watch over possible excesses of market power, one just doesnt. No amount of argument can do anything about it. One can chose to be more bothered about the daily new glamorous things one gets on one's i-phone and the Internet, or be more bothered about the structural implications of vertical integrations in the network space to the hopes set by the Internet for a more egalitarian world. You seem to be happy that Apple bundles so much goodies with its i-phone, McTim and Ginger are unhappy about the exclusive walls that the apps ecology of i-phone and other Apple products are creating, and therefroe refuse to use Apple products. Neither stances, in my view, is enough from a civil society advocacy group perspective which needs to probe the deeper policy issues and come up with responses that serve the progressive cause and advoacte them strongly on behalf of those who cannot be present in these forums but whose lives are nonetheless greatly affected by these developments. In any case, at least in my view, Internet is not just a market place, it is a social space for our non-commerical social interactions, it is a public media and a public sphere, it is a space for exercising citizenship. Perhaps without discussions on these deeper issues and essential nature of the Internet and what we take it to be, discussions on a 'simple act' of a free Internet based service wont go anywhere. Parminder Innovation tumbles over innovation, that's the law. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2010 7:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Ian and Parminder, This is an interesting point for me, but I wonder where the line is between advertising and other issues, like 'free benefits' which David mentions. For instance, when text messaging was first available in Venezuela, it was free. It was free for long enough to get everyone hooked on it. Then they started charging for it. It is difficult for me to see this as a NN issue since it sounds more like a 'free trial', or a 'package deal' that attracts customers. My serious issues with NN are lack of transparency, not marketing. Where do you see this 'line'? I think this is a good time to discuss NN so that we can be more productive in Vilnius. Best, Ginger On 8/7/2010 11:23 PM, Ian Peter wrote: Hi Parminder, Unfortunately Australia has already jumped ship on this too. It is common practice for ISPs here (who have volume charging regimes) to create free zones of their partner sites which do not attract volume charges and/or traffic shaping when people exceed download limits. Nobody here seems to want to pick this up as an issue. To me, this is a distortion of a free market and an open Internet at the same time and should be attracting a lot more attention. The mobile world, as you mention, brings with it other distortions and potential distortions (eg built in apps and interfaces) I agree - we should discuss. Ian Peter From: parminder Reply-To: , parminder Date: Sun, 08 Aug 2010 08:51:02 +0530 To: , Subject: [governance] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi All The biggest mobile operator in India, Airtel, is providing Facebook free of data download charges in India (apparently, only for 2 months). I understand this is happening in other countries too; i read about something similar in Russia. I consider this as an outright violation of net neutrality (NN). Since there are existing codes of conduct on NN in some countries like Norway and Brazil, I will like to know from those who know and understand these country specific arrangements well if such a thing as above will be considered a NN violation under these codes. If indeed developing countries are to have any chance of being a part of shaping and governing the future of the Internet, we should start testing such cases as above with the telecom regulatory authourities, and if needed with courts and anti-trust bodies. Parminder PS: See latest developments on NN debate in the US at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/google-verizon-close-to-their- own-net-neutrality-deal.ars It appears that there is some move to treat wireless or mobile based Internet on a different level vis a vis NN than wired Internet. As the largest market players - here, Verizon and Google - seek to arrive at a mutually convenient arrangement, and the only other party to it is the US gov, itself representing very partisan, and largely dominant, interests, as far as the global public Internet is concerned, the real shape of global IG is quite evident. Where does the IGF, and indeed the IGC come into this may be a question that we need to ponder upon. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int Mon Aug 16 06:32:06 2010 From: Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int (HIBBARD Lee) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:32:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC0683197D@OBELIX.key.coe.int> You may wish to consider the adopted position of the 47 member states of the Council of Europe regarding measures to promote the public service value of the Internet, adopted on 7 November 2007 Regards to all, Lee Hibbard ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday 14 August 2010 21:29 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: Internet: Public Internet: Internet as a public good: Net Neutrality: On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Mon Aug 16 12:06:03 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 11:06:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on In-Reply-To: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BD95@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Well said and +1! The key idea is the possibility of those normally relegated to the edges or shut out altogether having a seat at the table, giving one a chance to present views that would normally not be heard. The overwhelming misapprehension is that a seat at the table guarantees equality in outcomes. That is not the case. For me, just knowing the players that support a different perspective in any multifaceted argument is a great help in forging winning alliances. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 3:19 PM To: IGC Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Re: [] Net neutrality on mobiles Hi, I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model. To see and hear people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. Some people argue that the multistakeholder model is in contravention to democracy. i see it as one way of democracy. Democracy in the simplest form that so many argue for, only works when it is done within a constitution framework of some sort (does not need to be a Constitution, could be a set of Basic Laws or some other instrument) that defines the constraints on absolute democracy and that guarantees the fundamental rights of people. Democracy in its simplest form means 1 person 1 vote and majority wins. But we have seen time and time again the basic majorities are hungry to remove the rights, and more, of minorities - they do it all the time. We have also seen time and time again that a democracy without an informed polity does not remain a democracy for long but devolves in a dictatorship of personality. Multistakeholderism is a fundamentally democratic form that functions in environments where there is no overarching constitutional instrument. It is something that allows any person in the world, or group of people, to have a say and a seat at the table. Sometimes it sounds like people confuse multistakeholder with multishareholder. The multistakeholder model allow everyone to get involved in discussing and creating policy whether they have a financial stake or not, and whether they are part of some organized group or not. Yes, outreach and capacity must be done to reach the number of people who can participate, but that does not dismiss the participation of those who have made it to the table and continue to do outreach and capacity building to bring in others. Brand me a techno-utopian but I proudly believe the Internet is fundamentally different from any other social structure the world as ever seen in many respects, a fundamental one being its capacity to be global and borderless - though governments are working very hard to force it into borders and way too many people are helping them. To give up that uniqueness and cast it in the restrictive forms of telecommunications is frightening to me. The Internet is also the first time creating a global multistakeholder modality has even been possible. The utopian, and philosophical technologist, in me still hopes that the world can learn something new about governance from the Internet as opposed to allowing the wretched history of current governance models to overtake it and destroy it. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Aug 16 12:07:32 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:07:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 16 Aug 2010, at 01:49, parminder wrote: > > I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in it. Anytime. I think of the multistakeholder model and the task of preserving and strengthening it, as well as CS's capability to participate fully in it, as one of the most fundamental issues we have before us. I understand that this is my particular view and may not be shared by many. > > "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of the multistakeholder model " > > My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in this list. I do not understand this sentence. What democratic form is bypassed in civil society or in Global Policy making. We do not have any sort of constitutional structure whereby a democratic format other than the Multistakeholder modality exist. At least I haven't seen one. Sure, some of us live in countries that have some sort of democratic voting, but unless we are going to leave everything in the hands of the nations states, there is no other democratic form that i see - nor do i see one on the any horizon. So please explain the democratic form we are bypassing. I do see the multistakeholder model as good for actually making IG policy, not just for talking about it. So in this I disagree with Wolfgang: > The key issue of MS is "dialogue" among various groups on a more equal footing. MS is NOT a political decision making process. I agree if isn't yet, but I believe it can, and I believe it should, be. I just believe neither the model nor the participants have matured sufficiently yet to be able to do that. Just like I believe CS has not yet gotten to the point of maturity were we can democratically, in a bottom up manner, choose representatives in the various multistakeholder process - though we may be getting there slowly - experiment by experiment. As for your 'and not anarchist' phrase, I do not know what you mean. My view is that bottom-up structures, the absence of top down hierarchy is the democratic form of anarchism (sometimes also called anarcha-feminism or manifests in various forms of social anarchism like the anarcho-queer or the green anarchism movement ...). In my world view anarchism does not mean chaos or violence, but means bottom-up organization. But I know the word is highly overloaded with meaning and prejudice, and I do not know what you mean by it and whether you use it as dirty word (so many people do) or not. > > Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional supra-structures built over this basic norm. Actually I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is the protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may not abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities. I think any democracy that does not place that at the forefront of its principles is just another form of tyranny and one that does not deserve support. So for me, while important, 1 person 1 vote is secondary to the protection of rights and is not absolute. > > We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of 'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening democracy (which are very well established) from those of multistakeholderism. The point in the multistakeholder model is to equalize the power among the participants. This is a process that takes time and is to my mind a critical component of democracy. A fundamental concept is the equality of the participants in all of their stakeholder memberships, and I see no other system that gives us a path to that other than the multistakeholder model. > > So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism. Because deepening democracy, as I understand your explanation of it, does not include the notion of equality among all participants. And because from a pragmatic point of view, we have a certain amount of commitment from all sides, including those who hold power, toward a multistakeholder model. > > You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. Here again, we disagree. I think the fact that outreach and capacity building are integral to the multistakehoder model makes it very much the right solution for today. It should evolve in its complexity and maturity and it will eventually morph into the next step on the road to a social just bottom-up democracy with equal access for all in all of their apsects. > The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to democracy is well known, well theorised as well as practised. That is what is needed for an 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of literature on how the Internet may be having both a positive and a negative impact on the democratic public sphere.) > > Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and 'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when, as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to mega-corporates. I do not think you have shown this. You have argued it from our perspective, but I do not agree that you have shown it in any sot of QED manner. I find that you have a fear and resultant desire to exclude the commercial participants whereas I believe we can't do it without them. I believe their power can be fought in many ways, but keeping them away from the table is not one of them. These days, I find that people's identities and participation are as invested in the companies they work for or believe in (how many people identify themselves by the products they buy - Apple people anyone?) as they are in the governments they are ruled by and the civil society groups that represent their interests or the teams they cheer for and he veer they drink. The various stakeholder groups (and I do not hold to there only being 3) are the manifestations of the many forms of participation that humans engage in. When we bring together a truly multistakeholder group we allow for people to participate fully, being represented, in some sense to some degree, in several of the stakeholder groups. > > Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity still national, which means that global megacorporates are largely unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of public interest. And I give every support to notions of multistakeholder regulation of these multinational entities. I think it is the only way. But this means that the multistakeholder model needs to mature to the point where this can be done in a reliable open, transparent, and enforceable manner. I also do not agree that the polity is fully national. I think many of us are trying to move away from that national mode and some have done so to some extent. I think governments are holding us in these cages, but that too will probably change in time. I think a growing number people all the time are thinking globally, well except for when it comes to futbol teams and the local farmer's market. > This is what is new, which gives us even more reason to look at existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones, rather than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the malaise of unbridled corporate power even more. I find the old democratic forms to be suspect and inappropriate as they are all controlled at the national level. Some may be fine for determining the various governments' perspective on the issues, but do nothing for the other sides of the question. So these older democratic forms only represent one side of the multistakeholder equation. > > As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates (see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world through the Internet. I too support that. And see the multistakeholder model and the regulation by multistakeholder bodies as the only viable solution to the problem. > > Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds? > > Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal adversary of our advocacy efforts would change. _All_ borders bother me. > > You said, > > "..... people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss and made is unfathomable to me. " > > The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things may not be as unfanthomable. That is the point of continual outreach and capacity building in the multistakeholder model. Why is it these discussions remind me so much of the bitter fights in the US radical scene in the 80's?Where the Marxists said they had the way to understand the world while the Feminists said they did and then finally some really clever theoreticians figured out that combing the methods was most useful (of course while we argued among ourselves the free-market boys had eaten our lunch and captured the global mindshare). In today's world we have hopefully even moved beyond the recognition that have those are the two variables in the discussion and have hopefully moved in a multi-theoretical framework. Like the Marxism of the 80's, political economy only focuses on one aspect through one lens, so while useful and critical, it is limited; I believe one needs to take a multi-theoretical approach to both understanding the problems and finding the solutions - which leads me to conclude that a multistakeholder approach is currently the only viable option. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 13:06:35 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:06:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Multistakeholderism is a costume in which voluntary cooperation is dressed up in, unless there's some power to enforce contracts, agreements or resolutions that result. That enforcement would have to be in a court system. There's your government power right there. If the government somewhere can enforce private contracts or multistakeholder resolutions or compacts it apparently has an interest in subsidizing via the court system as well as the system of contract law the private agreements of two or more parties. Presumably, it then has even more solid basis for intervention when the more fundamental interests of equality are present. P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed is the foundation of every single non-democratic form of governance from Plato's "philosopher kings" to aristocrats to dictators, the idea always being that the people are too dumb and therefore need a great person to guide them. The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, that is, they are the best judge of whether laws chafe or embrace their interests, just like they are for shoes on their own feet. The many instances people might try to cite where it seems the people have not risen to the occasion are typically all instances in which it's doubtful whether the opinion of any given person will even be listened to by anybody, so in those kinds of cases it's reasonable for people to shirk the duty of becoming informed on account of avoiding the frustration that nobody listens anyway -- they only listen (if they do at all) to the leaders of the civil society groups hand selected by self-perpetuating bodies to speak for them. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/16/10, parminder wrote: > Avri > > I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in it. > > "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more > leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the > condemnation of the multistakeholder model " > > > My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and > bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, especially > in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in this list. > > Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 > person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only the > start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional > supra-structures built over this basic norm. > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From daniel at digsys.bg Mon Aug 16 13:07:42 2010 From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:07:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C69705E.1060004@digsys.bg> The multistakeholderism (does this word have German origins? ;) model works only, in a way, when all parties involved have more or less comparable powers, or if you will, influence in the outcome. As it was rightly pointed out, this model does not involve taking decisions. Rather, it involves, what we used to call in the 'socialist era' -- "shared iressponsibility". If you invite to the party 'stakeholders' that have little say in the final decision, or implementation, those parties will only serve as thesillent minority -- they will be "used" in the process to represent 'votes', but will neither have their say heard (or, it will be heard and ignored immediately) nor will they be able to complain lately, because "you participated, right?". I have seen this happen too may times in different environments. There is also another aspect of this model. Human nature is such, that small group of people end up abusing the rest. There is nothing in this model, at least in the 'internet governance' implementations, that prevents abuse form happening. When abuse happens, part of the stakeholders stop trusting the model and go away. Eventually, those who hold the control knobs, apply common sense and things are sort of repaired. If the parties with the knobs are corrupted -- the game ends. Sorry if I sound too pessimistic or critical. :) Daniel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 13:11:57 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 10:11:57 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <2936742BA0DE4FEBA7DE62DF8B267909@userPC> Avri, Thanks for your clear articulation of your position. A few questions: 1. what do you mean by a "stakeholder" i.e. who in your conception are a/the stakeholders 2. you mention below that you see stakeholders becoming more representative or at least making efforts to become more representative. Could you give me/us some specific examples and particularly where efforts are being made outside of immediate contact networks i.e. organizational/personal comfort zones 3. Parminder is concerned about the power of mega-corps in the here and now. You seem to be mildly optimistic around this and I would like to hear your explanation not in the misty future but rather more close to home where the oxcart trails are currently being worn in 4. you talk about there being a lack of a global constitutional order, but many point to things like the Land Mine treaty, the International Court in the Hague, the International Treaty on Cultural Diversity etc.etc. as the groundwork for such an international order--all of which have been promulgated and are enforceable (more or less) via nation states. Could you comment on this and why you don't see these as providing at least some direction for an international constitutional order, and why this has to be jettisoned for an as yet completely (conceptually) ill-formed multi-stakeholderism--baby/bathwater. 5. you say "I just believe neither the model nor the participants have matured sufficiently yet to be able to do that. Just like I believe CS has not yet gotten to the point of maturity were we can democratically, in a bottom up manner, choose representatives in the various multistakeholder process - though we may be getting there slowly - experiment by experiment." I wonder what evidence you have to indicate that either the model or the paricipants are "maturing" in the direction that you are suggesting. If anything, I think the evidence is pointing in the other direction i.e. as the stakes in IG get higher the processes are becoming less representative/democratic but I wait to be disproven on that. 6. you say "I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is the protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may not abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities" but I would like to hear/see your evidence that MSism in fact does what you say. My own observation is exactly the opposite. I see deals being struck between various stakeholders in whole range of areas that if they could (and sometimes do) by-pass national governments the results are a significant diminution of people's rights -- particularly in states where there is no broadbased responsible democratic processes--logging in Burma, mining in the DRC, land appropriation in the PRC and so on. 7. you say "The point in the multistakeholder model is to equalize the power among the participants. ...I see no other system that gives us a path to that other than the multistakeholder model. " I would like to hear/see your evidence for this. To my mind I see exactly the opposite of this. Powerful "stakeholders" running roughshod over the less powerful (when they are allowed to do so) and almost no effort being made by anyone (except the self-interested and self-serving) to empower anyone other than themselves. 8. you say "we have a certain amount of commitment from all sides, including those who hold power, toward a multistakeholder model". Again I would like to see your evidence for this particularly in situations where there may be a clear conflict of interests between powerful stakeholders (say governments and the corporates and civil society broadly understood i.e. beyond the usual set of civil society actors and NGO's). As I see things playing out MSism is a useful way of deflecting attention and absorbing and redirecting conflicts and energies and leaving the dis-established without even access to those who nominally speak on their behalf. Best, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:08 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism On 16 Aug 2010, at 01:49, parminder wrote: > > I think this is an important discussion, and thanks for engaging in > it. Anytime. I think of the multistakeholder model and the task of preserving and strengthening it, as well as CS's capability to participate fully in it, as one of the most fundamental issues we have before us. I understand that this is my particular view and may not be shared by many. > > "I begin to despair (at least a little) as I see more and more leaders > in Civil society join some of the governments in the condemnation of > the multistakeholder model " > > My despair with so many leaders in civil society undermining and > bypassing institutional (and not anarchist) democratic forms, > especially in the IG space is perhaps prior, as often articulated in > this list. I do not understand this sentence. What democratic form is bypassed in civil society or in Global Policy making. We do not have any sort of constitutional structure whereby a democratic format other than the Multistakeholder modality exist. At least I haven't seen one. Sure, some of us live in countries that have some sort of democratic voting, but unless we are going to leave everything in the hands of the nations states, there is no other democratic form that i see - nor do i see one on the any horizon. So please explain the democratic form we are bypassing. I do see the multistakeholder model as good for actually making IG policy, not just for talking about it. So in this I disagree with Wolfgang: > The key issue of MS is "dialogue" among various groups on a more equal > footing. MS is NOT a political decision making process. I agree if isn't yet, but I believe it can, and I believe it should, be. I just believe neither the model nor the participants have matured sufficiently yet to be able to do that. Just like I believe CS has not yet gotten to the point of maturity were we can democratically, in a bottom up manner, choose representatives in the various multistakeholder process - though we may be getting there slowly - experiment by experiment. As for your 'and not anarchist' phrase, I do not know what you mean. My view is that bottom-up structures, the absence of top down hierarchy is the democratic form of anarchism (sometimes also called anarcha-feminism or manifests in various forms of social anarchism like the anarcho-queer or the green anarchism movement ...). In my world view anarchism does not mean chaos or violence, but means bottom-up organization. But I know the word is highly overloaded with meaning and prejudice, and I do not know what you mean by it and whether you use it as dirty word (so many people do) or not. > > Yes, any democracy has to have a consitutional framework, and though 1 > person 1 vote is basic and the most sacrosanct principle, it is only > the start and any real democracy consists of numerous institutional > supra-structures built over this basic norm. Actually I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is the protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may not abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities. I think any democracy that does not place that at the forefront of its principles is just another form of tyranny and one that does not deserve support. So for me, while important, 1 person 1 vote is secondary to the protection of rights and is not absolute. > > We all agree that an elected government, even democratically elected > one, cannot claim complete right and legitimacy over what is public > interest. I proposed, as many others do, that we use the concept of > 'deepening democracy' the subject of UNDP's 2002 Human Development > Report 'Deepening democracy in a fragmented world'. I argued how this > concept seeks to include as many voices as possible with the aim to > make democracy a way of life, but is quite mindful of relative power > between different actors that 'participate' in its processes. This > later issue is what principally distinguishes practises of 'deepening > democracy (which are very well established) from those of > multistakeholderism. The point in the multistakeholder model is to equalize the power among the participants. This is a process that takes time and is to my mind a critical component of democracy. A fundamental concept is the equality of the participants in all of their stakeholder memberships, and I see no other system that gives us a path to that other than the multistakeholder model. > > So, my direct question to you is ' what is your problem with preaching > and practising 'deepening democracy' rather than multistakeholderism. Because deepening democracy, as I understand your explanation of it, does not include the notion of equality among all participants. And because from a pragmatic point of view, we have a certain amount of commitment from all sides, including those who hold power, toward a multistakeholder model. > > You say that without an 'informed polity' democracy is dead. Very > certainly so. And I dont believe multistakeholderism is what is needed > for an 'informed polity'. Here again, we disagree. I think the fact that outreach and capacity building are integral to the multistakehoder model makes it very much the right solution for today. It should evolve in its complexity and maturity and it will eventually morph into the next step on the road to a social just bottom-up democracy with equal access for all in all of their apsects. > The concept of 'public sphere' as basic to democracy is well known, > well theorised as well as practised. That is what is needed for an > 'informed polity'. (And there is a lot of literature on how the > Internet may be having both a positive and a negative impact on the > democratic public sphere.) > > Again, the question is, what is so new and unique now that we should > supplant the known and practised ideas of 'deepening democracy' and > 'public sphere' for this new thing, multistakeholderism (MSism), when, > as I showed with examples in an earlier email, in practice Msism has > mostly only succeeded in giving political space and respectability to > mega-corporates. I do not think you have shown this. You have argued it from our perspective, but I do not agree that you have shown it in any sot of QED manner. I find that you have a fear and resultant desire to exclude the commercial participants whereas I believe we can't do it without them. I believe their power can be fought in many ways, but keeping them away from the table is not one of them. These days, I find that people's identities and participation are as invested in the companies they work for or believe in (how many people identify themselves by the products they buy - Apple people anyone?) as they are in the governments they are ruled by and the civil society groups that represent their interests or the teams they cheer for and he veer they drink. The various stakeholder groups (and I do not hold to there only being 3) are the manifestations of the many forms of participation that humans engage in. When we bring together a truly multistakeholder group we allow for people to participate fully, being represented, in some sense to some degree, in several of the stakeholder groups. > > Discussing about what may be really new today, I thing the most > important new factor is that the economy is globalised and polity > still national, which means that global megacorporates are largely > unregulated and will keep increasing their power at the expense of > public interest. And I give every support to notions of multistakeholder regulation of these multinational entities. I think it is the only way. But this means that the multistakeholder model needs to mature to the point where this can be done in a reliable open, transparent, and enforceable manner. I also do not agree that the polity is fully national. I think many of us are trying to move away from that national mode and some have done so to some extent. I think governments are holding us in these cages, but that too will probably change in time. I think a growing number people all the time are thinking globally, well except for when it comes to futbol teams and the local farmer's market. > This is what is new, which gives us even more reason to look at > existing democratic practises like the above mentioned ones, rather > than try out new 'suspect' ones which in fact helps spread the malaise > of unbridled corporate power even more. I find the old democratic forms to be suspect and inappropriate as they are all controlled at the national level. Some may be fine for determining the various governments' perspective on the issues, but do nothing for the other sides of the question. So these older democratic forms only represent one side of the multistakeholder equation. > > As for your concerns about governments forcing the uniquely global > Internet into national borders, I am very concerned about it. But I am > as concerned about Internet being forced by mega digital corporates > (see net neutrality debate) into new borders of class. I cherished the > possibility of an undivided global world through the Internet, but 'my > uptopianism' even more saw a hope and vision of a class-less world > through the Internet. I too support that. And see the multistakeholder model and the regulation by multistakeholder bodies as the only viable solution to the problem. > > Why some kind of borders bother us more than other kinds? > > Depending on which kind of borders bother us more, the principal > adversary of our advocacy efforts would change. _All_ borders bother me. > > You said, > > "..... people undercutting the very modality that gives them a seat at > the international, regional and nation tables where policy is discuss > and made is unfathomable to me. " > > The political economy question is, which 'people' who are 'them' or > rather 'we'. If we think through political economy lenses these things > may not be as unfanthomable. That is the point of continual outreach and capacity building in the multistakeholder model. Why is it these discussions remind me so much of the bitter fights in the US radical scene in the 80's?Where the Marxists said they had the way to understand the world while the Feminists said they did and then finally some really clever theoreticians figured out that combing the methods was most useful (of course while we argued among ourselves the free-market boys had eaten our lunch and captured the global mindshare). In today's world we have hopefully even moved beyond the recognition that have those are the two variables in the discussion and have hopefully moved in a multi-theoretical framework. Like the Marxism of the 80's, political economy only focuses on one aspect through one lens, so while useful and critical, it is limited; I believe one needs to take a multi-theoretical approach to both understanding the problems and finding the solutions - which leads me to conclude that a multistakeholder approach is currently the only viable option. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Aug 16 13:18:43 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:18:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:06, Paul Lehto wrote: > P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed i do not attack them. i merely say we are responsible for outreach and capacity building. > The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, yep and that is why the people always discriminate against the others. - gay marriage does not fit - mosques too close sacred ground do not fit - equal protection for undocumented immigrant children does not fit - turkish immigrants do not fit - gay people do not fit and thus merit imprisonment and execution ... yep, the people always know what does not fit! 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 13:33:49 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:33:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> Message-ID: On 8/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:06, Paul Lehto wrote: > >> P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed > > i do not attack them. > i merely say we are responsible for outreach and capacity building. But you then proceed to sarcastically attack their wisdom: >> The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, > > yep and that is why the people always discriminate against the others. > > - gay marriage does not fit > - mosques too close sacred ground do not fit > - equal protection for undocumented immigrant children does not fit > - turkish immigrants do not fit > - gay people do not fit and thus merit imprisonment and execution > ... > yep, the people always know what does not fit! Right here is why the principle that one's rights END where another's BEGIN is so important: The "shoe fitting" metaphor applies with force when, as I've said in recent prior posts, ones own rights are "negatively impacted". The correct person to judge if the shoe fits is the one being forced to wear the shoes - such as the Turkish immigrants and other examples you give. As I said before (and it matters not whether the charge is true or not) the description of people or "the people" as dumb or uninformed is the foundation, almost the entire foundation, of all non-democratic or autocratic forms of government. It is also the core of the stereotypes always used to justify slavery, for that matter. Dumb, ignorant, lazy, etc., and "therefore needs a smart master with a whip to be productive." Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. My personal view on "uninformed" allegations is that people rise to the occasion when they are BOTH of the belief that their one vote won't be ignored AND they can find or are given a fair mix of information and a sense of the importance of the issue. Notice that these conditions are not usually met and, more sadly, there's few or no attempts by governments i'm familiar with to meet the conditions. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Aug 16 13:38:21 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:38:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2936742BA0DE4FEBA7DE62DF8B267909@userPC> References: <2936742BA0DE4FEBA7DE62DF8B267909@userPC> Message-ID: <311CFF94-E0EB-4F39-B278-559BCE544E13@psg.com> On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:11, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Thanks for your clear articulation of your position. > you are quite welcome > A few questions: a few? at some point when i have a few hours to spare i may try to answer them all. but thanks for reading my email. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Aug 16 13:43:42 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:43:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> Message-ID: <1A0B33A5-C6F5-45B0-8738-94F3437A8FD4@psg.com> so now I am accused of advocating slavery? and advocating the whip. interesting argument technique. a. On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:33, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 8/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >> >> On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:06, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >>> P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed >> >> i do not attack them. >> i merely say we are responsible for outreach and capacity building. > > But you then proceed to sarcastically attack their wisdom: > >>> The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, >> >> yep and that is why the people always discriminate against the others. >> >> - gay marriage does not fit >> - mosques too close sacred ground do not fit >> - equal protection for undocumented immigrant children does not fit >> - turkish immigrants do not fit >> - gay people do not fit and thus merit imprisonment and execution >> ... >> yep, the people always know what does not fit! > > Right here is why the principle that one's rights END where another's > BEGIN is so important: The "shoe fitting" metaphor applies with force > when, as I've said in recent prior posts, ones own rights are > "negatively impacted". The correct person to judge if the shoe fits > is the one being forced to wear the shoes - such as the Turkish > immigrants and other examples you give. > > As I said before (and it matters not whether the charge is true or > not) the description of people or "the people" as dumb or uninformed > is the foundation, almost the entire foundation, of all non-democratic > or autocratic forms of government. It is also the core of the > stereotypes always used to justify slavery, for that matter. Dumb, > ignorant, lazy, etc., and "therefore needs a smart master with a whip > to be productive." > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > P.S. My personal view on "uninformed" allegations is that people rise > to the occasion when they are BOTH of the belief that their one vote > won't be ignored AND they can find or are given a fair mix of > information and a sense of the importance of the issue. Notice that > these conditions are not usually met and, more sadly, there's few or > no attempts by governments i'm familiar with to meet the conditions. > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Aug 16 13:56:45 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:56:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Lee, The term "net neutrality" has not been dumped by the courts. The courts told the FCC that they didn't have the regulatory authority to require it, because of one of their own decisions classifying internet as an information service rather than telecom service. That doesn't mean the term is meaningless or undesirable. On the contrary, it tells the FCC that it must either seek new legislation or reclassify broadband if it wants to regulate NN. Google hasn't dumped the _term_ either. It has tried to come up with a practical construction of it that allows network operators to exercise some control over bandwidth mgmt while not discriminating. I agree that it is not easy to translate the wonderful principle of NN into a specific regulatory regime without doing more harm than good. Indeed, IGP said so in its 2007 paper. Open internet doesn't advance the dialogue in any way I can see. It doesn't mean anything, as far as I can tell. But I am happy to receive a coherent definition. It will be interesting to see whether this definition, if subjected to the same "stress tests" as NN, provides a basis for reslving the regulatory disputes. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Lee W McKnight [mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu] > Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 12:24 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque; Parminder > Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions > > let's add in the phrase 'open Internet' which actually means > something...as opposed to the term dumped by US courts and now by its > inventor, Google. > ________________________________________ > From: Ginger Paque [gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2010 3:28 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions > > This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions > as starting points: > > Internet: > > Public Internet: > > Internet as a public good: > > Net Neutrality: > > > > > On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so > current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what > constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. > (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). > Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue > IG. > > Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Aug 16 14:16:04 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:16:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922313@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > > Anytime. I think of the multistakeholder model and the task of > preserving and strengthening it, as well as CS's capability to > participate fully in it, as one of the most fundamental issues we have > before us. I understand that this is my particular view and may not be > shared by many. As I explained in Meissen, MS is at best a transitional form of governance. It starts to disintegrate or moderate the monopoly states have on international policy making, by engaging in a mild form of pluralization. > leaders in Civil society join some of the governments in the > condemnation of the multistakeholder model " As you know I don't condemn it, but people who oversell the model produce this kind of reaction, and create an inviting target. > What democratic form is bypassed in civil society or in Global Policy > making. We do not have any sort of constitutional structure whereby a > democratic format other than the Multistakeholder modality exist. You are, as far as I can tell, conceding the case. You are saying that insofar as multistakeholderism has any value here, it is only because it moves us closer to a form of democracy more appropriate to a world beyond nation-states. But let's not confuse the transitional form with the end state. > I do see the multistakeholder model as good for actually making IG > policy, not just for talking about it. Here we agree. But the more it becomes a decision making process, the more it becomes apparent that the "constitution" underpinning the MS model, and its engagement with individual rights and balances of powers, is weak. Very weak. Look at ICANN. > As for your 'and not anarchist' phrase, I do not know what you mean. > My view is that bottom-up structures, the absence of top down hierarchy > is the democratic form of anarchism (sometimes also called anarcha- > feminism or manifests in various forms of social anarchism like the > anarcho-queer or the green anarchism movement ...). In my world view > anarchism does not mean chaos or violence, but means bottom-up > organization. But I know the word is highly overloaded with meaning > and prejudice, and I do not know what you mean by it and whether you > use it as dirty word (so many people do) or not. "bottom up" is a vague description of a process, not a system of governance. Bottom up using what processes? Based on what rights? (see below) > Actually I tend to think that the most sacrosanct principle is the > protection of people's rights with the corollary that the majority may > not abuse or restrict any of the rights of minorities. I think any > democracy that does not place that at the forefront of its principles > is just another form of tyranny and one that does not deserve support. > So for me, while important, 1 person 1 vote is secondary to the > protection of rights and is not absolute. Here we are in violent agreement. But I call that "liberal democracy" not anarchism or MS. MS is notoriously bad at securing minority rights, as are all bottom up participatory processes (a lynch mob could be considered open, participatory governance, operating with "rough consensus" - obviously lacking the agreement of the lynched person, but probably having well heard, and rejected, his/her entreaties). Anyway, I don't think the gap between you, Parminder and I is that great. I think the more important differences are tactical and strategic, in terms of how to get there. --MM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Aug 16 14:44:40 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 20:44:40 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922313@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F56@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Milton Let's not confuse the transitional form with the end state. Wolfgang: Good point, Milton. The MS principle/process/dialogue is still in its infant stage. There is a long road to go. It emerged as the result of political process where governments (and private sector) realized that they can not manage the Internet alone. And it needs to be further enhanced. We moved from A to B but Z is still far away. What would be the alternative to MS? The right of the jungle? Do not forget that the IG definition of the WGIG - which calls for an inclusion of all stakeholders in IG PDP - was a compromise between the Chinese position for "governmental leadership" and the US position for "private sector leadership". The "new beast" which emerged in the WSIS process and neutralized to a certain degree this black and white-conflict was the "civil society" which matured in the WSIS process ands produced a workable policy structures (Pleanry, Content&Theme Group, WGs, Buro etc.) and demonstrated its capacity for policy making with its Civil Society WSIS Declaration from 2003. I invite everzbody to go bacxk to this document and read it and remember how it emerged. The weak point - both in the WSIS process, in the WGIG definition and also in ICANN - is that there are no procedures in place for a reasonable interaction among the stakeholders. Everything remains vague. If ALAC gives "advice" to the ICANN Board, what is the legal nature of such an ALAC advise? Insofar, Daniel makes a good point by articulating the warning, that the @inclusion@ in a dialogue with more powerful partners can be counterproductive and justify one sided power or profit oriented decisions by governments or corporations by refering to the "participation" (and consent?) of civil society in the dialogue. We know this from corrupt trade unions. But this does not speak against trade unions in general and against the usefulnees of dialogue among all involved parties, this calls for better procedures how the dialogue can be translated into policy decisions. To enhance the system there is a need to draft such procedures for interaction. The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Rights and Principles can make a good contribution by propoising a set of rights and duties for governments, private corporations and civil society in Internet Governance. Such a MS IG Declaration could become a reference for cases where one stakeholder tries to misuse the presence of another stakeholder in the dialogue to justify illegitimate actions. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 15:42:16 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:42:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <1A0B33A5-C6F5-45B0-8738-94F3437A8FD4@psg.com> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <62C9DD41-1F64-43F3-8B63-800DD6B3C0B2@psg.com> <1A0B33A5-C6F5-45B0-8738-94F3437A8FD4@psg.com> Message-ID: On 8/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > > so now I am accused of advocating slavery? > and advocating the whip. > > interesting argument technique. No, this is not personally about you. I put forth a general principle in the beginning about "dumbness" being the basic foundation for all un-democratic forms of government, and after you entered into my subthread, I expanded that to note that dumbness, as well as laziness, is the stereotype used to justify slavery. My points are intended to introduce a note of caution (if I can) in the way people in general are characterized. One would be "dumb" to reiterate the stereotypes of slavery on purpose, so no I do not accuse you of any such intention. See "Regardless of place and time period or the ethnicity of the slaves, societies have imposed certain common stereotypes on slaves - that they were licentious, childlike, lazy, irresponsible, dim-witted, and incapable of freedom [or governance]. http://www.scribd.com/doc/31668177/Origins-and-Nature-of-NewWorld-Slavery > > a. > > > > On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:33, Paul Lehto wrote: > >> On 8/16/10, Avri Doria wrote: >>> >>> On 16 Aug 2010, at 13:06, Paul Lehto wrote: >>> >>>> P.S. Attacking the people or 'polity' as uninformed >>> >>> i do not attack them. >>> i merely say we are responsible for outreach and capacity building. >> >> But you then proceed to sarcastically attack their wisdom: >> >>>> The truth is that the people know when the shoe fits, >>> >>> yep and that is why the people always discriminate against the others. >>> >>> - gay marriage does not fit >>> - mosques too close sacred ground do not fit >>> - equal protection for undocumented immigrant children does not fit >>> - turkish immigrants do not fit >>> - gay people do not fit and thus merit imprisonment and execution >>> ... >>> yep, the people always know what does not fit! >> >> Right here is why the principle that one's rights END where another's >> BEGIN is so important: The "shoe fitting" metaphor applies with force >> when, as I've said in recent prior posts, ones own rights are >> "negatively impacted". The correct person to judge if the shoe fits >> is the one being forced to wear the shoes - such as the Turkish >> immigrants and other examples you give. >> >> As I said before (and it matters not whether the charge is true or >> not) the description of people or "the people" as dumb or uninformed >> is the foundation, almost the entire foundation, of all non-democratic >> or autocratic forms of government. It is also the core of the >> stereotypes always used to justify slavery, for that matter. Dumb, >> ignorant, lazy, etc., and "therefore needs a smart master with a whip >> to be productive." >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> P.S. My personal view on "uninformed" allegations is that people rise >> to the occasion when they are BOTH of the belief that their one vote >> won't be ignored AND they can find or are given a fair mix of >> information and a sense of the importance of the issue. Notice that >> these conditions are not usually met and, more sadly, there's few or >> no attempts by governments i'm familiar with to meet the conditions. >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-2334 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Mon Aug 16 16:41:35 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:41:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C670D67.1070304@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message <4C670D67.1070304 at cavebear.com>, at 14:40:55 on Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Karl Auerbach writes >However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public >internet" to describe only that portion of the net that is owned or >operated by a public entity. What !?! Something is public if people have access to it (without any credentials other than money, if required), irrespective of who owns it. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Aug 16 17:18:59 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:18:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.a d.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100816203159.05ba4540@jefsey.com> Not to be subjective, i.e. legally acceptable "Network neutrality" must be mesurable. So, it can only be a technical notion. http://wikalfa.org/wiki/Neutralit%C3%A9_du_r%C3%A9seau_-_Network_neutrality (domaine public/public domain). Thank you for your comments. Merci pour vos commentaires. jfc --- La fourniture d'un service de réseau est dite techniquement neutre lorsque tous les systèmes participant au processus de bout en bout peuvent être remplacés au hasard par leurs équivalents techniques de tout autre opérateur sans qu'elle ne soit améliorée. The provision of a network service is said to be technically neutral when every system participating in the end-to-end process can randomly be replaced by its technical equivalent from any other operators without it being enhanced. -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Mon Aug 16 17:30:29 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 14:30:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C69ADF5.408@cavebear.com> Just so that we have something solid to chew on when talking about net neutrality, here are some of the concrete ways in which I see that providers can "engineer" (or "bias") the traffic that flows. This list is only a tiny portion of the ways that providers can "tune" their networks. I'm not trying here to be exhaustive, merely illustrative. My goal here is to suggest that when we talk about net neutrality that we ought to be able to draw clear lines from general principles to concrete things done by providers, and, importantly, vice versa. - In VoIP the choice of codec can have a big impact. And some human languages suffer greater codec degradation than do others. Just as one of my favorite singers' voice was used to tune the MP3 parameters the languages of the US and western Europe tend to have been used when creating the codecs most typically used for VoIP. With those codecs vowel-rich languages tend to work better and those languages with sharp consents tend to suffer because the rise-time/attack of those sounds are frequently chopped or softened. Asian languages tend to suffer. And I've often wondered whether African click languages become incomprehensible, particularly when the provider not only uses a vowel oriented coded but also uses the technique of removing packets that contain mostly silence. - Protocol based routing - this is very often done to segregate VoIP traffic onto paths that are not carrying big (i.e. long serialization time) packets of HTTP and its ilk. And some traffic, particularly backup jobs and the like, are not harmed by being routed via inexpensive, but slow, geosynchronous satellite paths. - Protocol based queue priority - routers are usually filled with queues of packets that are waiting to be sent on an outgoing interface. These queues can get long. And they can overflow. And there are often several queues waiting for a single physical interface. The order in which packets are inserted into queues (FIFO or preference based), the queue that is selected for insertion, the queues that get preference when the interface becomes empty (fair queueing, round-robin, etc), the drop policy (tail drop, random drop, RED, protocol-sensitive drop [e.g. don't drop TCP ACK or FIN packets]) are all among the knobs and dials available to a provider. - Aggregate limits - providers may allow up to a given amount of traffic within a certain time period and then penalize any overrun. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Aug 16 17:38:38 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:38:38 -0300 Subject: [governance] Seeking non-U.S. blogs/articles re: Google/Verizon and net neutrality In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00ad01cb3d8b$6449d5a0$2cdd80e0$@com.br> Dear Rebecca, I will try to find some issues besides our comments in Portuguese, here in Brazil. Kind regards Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464 Board Member of ICANN From: Rebecca MacKinnon [mailto:rebecca.mackinnon at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 8:03 PM To: governance; oni at eon.law.harvard.edu Initiative Subject: [governance] Seeking non-U.S. blogs/articles re: Google/Verizon and net neutrality Dear friends, I'm trying to get a better sense of how different people in different parts of the world view the Google/Verizon net neutrality proposal. While a couple of lists I'm on have members from around the world who have provided some great insights, I am also hoping to find a broader range of publicly quotable and linkable material published on blogs and news websites around the world. If you have written or recently encountered articles or blog posts (in any language) that you think provide useful insight about the potential long-term global implications of the Google/Verizon proposal - in the event that something akin to what they are proposing were to be implemented in the U.S. and perhaps also in markets - or for that matter about the general significance of both broadband and wireless net neutrality for people in various countries and regions, I would greatly appreciate it if you could share any links you've got. Thanks so much!! Rebecca -- Rebecca MacKinnon Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation Co-founder, GlobalVoicesOnline.org Cell: +1-617-939-3493 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 18:12:13 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:12:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: There's a "stress test" called the "void for vagueness" doctrine in common law courts that strikes down statutory wording that is unclear such that "the average person must necessarily guess at its meaning." Counsel considering ways of defending their client's case can almost always find a key phrase and attack it as void for vagueness because literally any term or phrase can be deconstructed with the result that the contours of meaning made to seem unclear and/or incoherent at best. In this context, "public internet" is attacked and accused of meaninglessness. Most recently, the US Supreme Court struck down the term "honest services" in reference to wire fraud, which had the effect of reversing the convictions of Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling. If one considers that the opposite of fraud is honesty, this result is nearly staggering, but it is instead a testament to the power to deconstruct virtually any word or phrase. Whenever void for vagueness doctrine in any form, or meaning-stress-tests are applied, it's a way to kill whatever it is applied to, IF there is the desire to kill it. Similarly, someone else just said today that a "legally" acceptable standard would have to be measurable. This is definitely not true throughout the common law, and I'd be surprised if it were true here. If it happens to be true, wheover passed that statute or regulation insisting on measurability did not wish to have "subjective" standards in the law like "honesty", "that which would deceive a reasonable person," "unfair business practices" and the like. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/16/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: [snip] > Open internet doesn't advance the dialogue in any way I can see. It doesn't > mean anything, as far as I can tell. But I am happy to receive a coherent > definition. It will be interesting to see whether this definition, if > subjected to the same "stress tests" as NN, provides a basis for reslving > the regulatory disputes. > > --MM -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Mon Aug 16 19:36:14 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:36:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> On 08/16/2010 03:12 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > In this context, "public internet" is attacked and accused of > meaninglessness. Let's not go into your description of statutory interpretation. The art of such interpretation is very dependent upon the jurisdictional and factual contexts. But I don't think we need to go there - I have not been saying that the phrase "public internet" is either vague or meaningless. Quite the contrary. I am saying that the phrase is not at all vague or meaningless. I am saying that some of us here seem to want to make the word "public" in that phrase into an empty word so that the phrase "public internet" and the unadorned word "internet" mean the same thing. People are, of course, free to read statements of policy on neutrality on the "public internet" as if those statements apply to the entire internet, public or private. But they ought not to be surprised if someone else, particularly the authors of those statements, choose to use those words so that the qualifiers "public" and "private" actually mean something. And it would not be surprising if those policies are read by others such that the qualifier "public" is recognized as having weight. Given that, at least in the USA, well over 90% of the net, and perhaps closer to 99%, is owned by private entities, a policy that defines net neutrality on a non-privately owned/operated "public internet" would be a policy of very limited scope. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 16 23:21:57 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:21:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> Message-ID: On 8/16/10, Karl Auerbach wrote: > Given that, at least in the USA, well over 90% of the net, and perhaps > closer to 99%, is owned by private entities, a policy that defines net > neutrality on a non-privately owned/operated "public internet" would be > a policy of very limited scope. Your focus on ownership to the exclusion of other factors is misplaced. IN the last few days, I attended a "county fair" held on private land and yet all kinds of legal rights "followed' me there, I stopped by a privately owned shopping mall and my rights followed me (even free speech rights), and I went blueberry picking on private land with the permission of the owner, who lets anyone pick there for free that wishes to. Even though the fair and the shopping mall are also privately owned land, only in the last case of the blueberry "private" land is the situation akin to what you mis-describe as the "private internet." In fact, it would be NEARER to the truth to call them a "public fair" even though it's "private" land, and a "public shopping mall" even though it's on private land. The fact is, as soon as anyone is invited or tolerated to be on "private' land or property (including a website) a whole new legal regime of rules comes in, and they are "invitees" or "business invitees" in the case of real (land) property and are owed definite legal duties by the owners, regardless of whether they buy anything or not. So long as I'm not breaking through a firewall or hacking in some way, the internet as the typical person experiences it is virtually the same (legally) throughout the "privately" and publicly owned parts. This is sufficiently true that many websites will attempt to alter those rules an obtain waivers of some rights via contractual terms of service, EULAs and the like. But the law is all still "there" in the "private' internet, including the law related to what people can legitimately agree to or not agree to via a contract term or EULA. To cut to the chase, the "public" vs. "private" distinction is only relevant in one important sense. if it is deemed "private", as a matter of mere politics and persuasion the rhetorical deck is stacked in favor of private parties making law via contract and EULA. If the internet is considered "public" then of course only the public makes the law. But even in the "private" sector, government laws structure and control all of contract law, anti-fraud protections, and so on. The FCC may not have been delegated authority over this, but that doesn't mean Congress and parliaments around the world don't have the authority within their jurisdiction - because they do. The FCC only lacks power because the first element it must always prove is that it has had power delegated to it by the Congress. In a nutshell, the real battle is between "legislation to preserve pubilc goods on the internet" vs. "let the market decide, via laissez-faire capitalism, how much public good there ought to be on the internet." Whether or not that's Karl's way of thinking about it (which I doubt) that's really what it boils down to. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Mon Aug 16 23:52:30 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 23:52:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F51@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F51@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <8E496A26-8848-4BAB-A39D-95BFE9C74847@post.harvard.edu> > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Aug 17 04:21:54 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 01:21:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> On 08/16/2010 08:21 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > On 8/16/10, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> Given that, at least in the USA, well over 90% of the net, and perhaps >> closer to 99%, is owned by private entities, a policy that defines net >> neutrality on a non-privately owned/operated "public internet" would be >> a policy of very limited scope. > > Your focus on ownership to the exclusion of other factors is > misplaced. IN the last few days, I attended a "county fair" held on > private land ... I am intrigued by your attempt to equate use of private land by invitation or contract with the conveyance of packets over a privately owned and operated wire and through privately owned and operated routers. I don't find it a compelling analogy. Let's begin with the ultimate private right, the right to refuse. Are you saying that a provider *must* carry your packets? That the carrier must remain in existence, even to its bankruptcy to convey your packets? That would be absurd. And, if it were required, it would mean the speedy end of the internet. Or are you saying that a provider must give non-paying non-customers the same access to its facilities as paying customers? That would seem to be a quick road to provider insolvency. I have routine blocks against certain people reading my privately constructed, privately operated, and privately hosted websites. And I have similar blocks against certain sources of undesired email. If I blocked you you are suggesting that somehow I would be violating denying your rights on the internet. Needless to say, absent some special relationship or contract, neither I nor anyone else has any such duty to you. You seem to feel that just because I may have a website or other service up on the net that you have unfettered rights to access it. That is not true. I can limit or even revoke your access at any time without notice. So can every other operators, except perhaps certain governmental ("public") operators. Moreover, if you persist and pound on my servers to excess or try to penetrate the security barriers then you could be find that you've stepped into somewhat deep waters. But that's websites. Let's get back to the carriage of packets over the net: ISP's tend to have peering and transit contracts with one another to which you have neither privity nor third party beneficiary rights with regard to those agreements. At best you have an agreement with your local first hop provider/ISP, nothing more. You can not demand that third party providers carry packets to and from your ISP. Even less do you have standing to demand that those third party providers give your packets equal or premier treatment. I get the sense that you are also attempting to equate the carriage of IP packets over privately owned links and routers in the net as if those were some sort of public place, along the lines of the cases in which private shopping malls were equated to public streets for purposes of things like gathering signatures on petitions. If that's what you are attempting, I find the analogy flat. A provider that doesn't carry your packets with equity or even at all, is not stopping you from publishing your material. There are almost as many web hosting providers as there are Starbucks coffee stores - so if one can't publish your stuff there's always a willing and able provider coming around on the merry-go-round. Perhaps if there were some sort of collusion among all the providers there might possibly be something actionable. But finally, this whole thread started when someone said that the phrase "public internet" was the whole internet. You can pound your keyboard against the cold iron of the perception of those who are spending the money that they own and thus control the assets they paid for. I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you could possibly achieve is some sort of non-discriminatory common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that different classes of service would come at different prices. That regime is not going to arise out of some local "common law" principle (particularly as most of the world isn't based on English "common law" at all). It might arise at a national level via national legislation, but as we well know the net is international and supranational and that national law in that context is nothing more than "mere domestic law". --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Aug 17 04:57:03 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:57:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:21:54AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wro > You seem to feel that just because I may have a website or other > service up on the net that you have unfettered rights to access it. > That is not true. I can limit or even revoke your access at any > time without notice. So can every other operators, except perhaps > certain governmental ("public") operators. Feelings aside and without judging which way it should be, that is not true in many countries. In particular, if you are doing business, you do *not* have the right to discriminate arbitrarily against selected clients in Finland or many (most?) other European countries (probably EU level legislation, though I haven't checked). Rather, you must have a valid reason (formally there's just a list of invalid reasons, but it's so long that in practice you must show a valid one). > You can not demand that third party providers carry packets to and > from your ISP. Even less do you have standing to demand that those > third party providers give your packets equal or premier treatment. Actually, yes I can - ok, not premier but equal in some sense: if they discriminate against my packets they must have a valid reason in many countries, USA to the contrary. (Although there are *some* restrictions even in the US against some types of discrimination, like race- or gender-based, if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if any such would apply here.) > I get the sense that you are also attempting to equate the carriage > of IP packets over privately owned links and routers in the net as > if those were some sort of public place, along the lines of the > cases in which private shopping malls were equated to public streets > for purposes of things like gathering signatures on petitions. Don't know about him, but the restrictions I mentioned are rather considered "fair business practices". > You can pound your keyboard against the cold iron of the perception > of those who are spending the money that they own and thus control > the assets they paid for. There are lots of limitations on what you can do with your property, especially if you want to do business with it. > I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you > could possibly achieve is some sort of non-discriminatory > common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that > different classes of service would come at different prices. Yes, one well-accepted reason for discrimination is money. > That regime is not going to arise out of some local "common law" > principle (particularly as most of the world isn't based on English > "common law" at all). It might arise at a national level via > national legislation, but as we well know the net is international > and supranational and that national law in that context is nothing > more than "mere domestic law". That is a very good point - even though we've seen various attempts to enforce national jurisdiction on companies doing business across borders, sometimes with success, and while technically those only apply within national borders, they have some tendency to seep across, via international agreements and even simply because it's easier to stick to one set of procedures everywhere. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 17 05:22:24 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:52:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> Karl, > But finally, this whole thread started when someone said that the phrase "public internet" was the whole internet. This goes back to definitions, that we started to attempt. One can call any traffic carried over IP as Internet, and to me you seem to think so. (Please correct me if I am wrong). Verizon- Google uses the term non-Internet for IP traffic which is carried through entirely private agreements, and public Internet for IP traffic which is subject to certain levels/ kinds of universal access, transmission etc - which we may call as bound by a 'public contract', or by some degree of publicness. I agree with this separation of meanings between non-Internet and the Internet as a public space/ entity. However, as argued earlier, degrees or manners of publicness characterizing a public space/ entity is different in different contexts - like public parks, public roads, public schools, public utility, public universities etc. Not all - for instance, in many cases public utilities - are owned or operated by a public agency. Such different uses of the term 'public' does not take away its meaning. There can be private enclaves within a public space, or the latter can be connecting private spaces. For instance, a private conversation in a public park and a road connecting houses respectively. In the case of the Internet, similarly, the publicness of the Internet does not overrule the privateness of an email carried by it, and also Internet of course does connect private networks, including those using IP. In this context, like those who wrote the Verizon-Google agreement, I am completely able to understand the meaning of Internet as a 'public Internet'. However, the agreement makes distinction between the levels of (or nature of) publicness of the wired Internet and wireless and I do not agree with this distinction. You yourself speak of, what i see as, a public Internet in your email. >I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you could possibly achieve is some sort of >non-discriminatory common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that different classes of service would >come at different prices. Such a common carriage network has traditionally been called as a public network as in '/public switched telephone network', even when operated by private operators. / The real problem is with a narrow way of looking at the meaning of public, which simply does not hold in the present discussion, and is IMHO only succeeding in making the discussion on public interest regulation of the Internet even more confusing . Quoting from one of your earlier emails >However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public internet" to describe only that portion of the net >that is owned or operated by a public entity. Parminder On Tuesday 17 August 2010 01:51 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/16/2010 08:21 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: >> On 8/16/10, Karl Auerbach wrote: >>> Given that, at least in the USA, well over 90% of the net, and perhaps >>> closer to 99%, is owned by private entities, a policy that defines net >>> neutrality on a non-privately owned/operated "public internet" would be >>> a policy of very limited scope. >> >> Your focus on ownership to the exclusion of other factors is >> misplaced. IN the last few days, I attended a "county fair" held on >> private land ... > > I am intrigued by your attempt to equate use of private land by > invitation or contract with the conveyance of packets over a privately > owned and operated wire and through privately owned and operated routers. > > I don't find it a compelling analogy. > > Let's begin with the ultimate private right, the right to refuse. > > Are you saying that a provider *must* carry your packets? That the > carrier must remain in existence, even to its bankruptcy to convey > your packets? That would be absurd. And, if it were required, it > would mean the speedy end of the internet. > > Or are you saying that a provider must give non-paying non-customers > the same access to its facilities as paying customers? That would > seem to be a quick road to provider insolvency. > > I have routine blocks against certain people reading my privately > constructed, privately operated, and privately hosted websites. And I > have similar blocks against certain sources of undesired email. If I > blocked you you are suggesting that somehow I would be violating > denying your rights on the internet. Needless to say, absent some > special relationship or contract, neither I nor anyone else has any > such duty to you. > > You seem to feel that just because I may have a website or other > service up on the net that you have unfettered rights to access it. > That is not true. I can limit or even revoke your access at any time > without notice. So can every other operators, except perhaps certain > governmental ("public") operators. Moreover, if you persist and pound > on my servers to excess or try to penetrate the security barriers then > you could be find that you've stepped into somewhat deep waters. > > But that's websites. Let's get back to the carriage of packets over > the net: > > ISP's tend to have peering and transit contracts with one another to > which you have neither privity nor third party beneficiary rights with > regard to those agreements. > > At best you have an agreement with your local first hop provider/ISP, > nothing more. > > You can not demand that third party providers carry packets to and > from your ISP. Even less do you have standing to demand that those > third party providers give your packets equal or premier treatment. > > I get the sense that you are also attempting to equate the carriage of > IP packets over privately owned links and routers in the net as if > those were some sort of public place, along the lines of the cases in > which private shopping malls were equated to public streets for > purposes of things like gathering signatures on petitions. > > If that's what you are attempting, I find the analogy flat. A > provider that doesn't carry your packets with equity or even at all, > is not stopping you from publishing your material. There are almost > as many web hosting providers as there are Starbucks coffee stores - > so if one can't publish your stuff there's always a willing and able > provider coming around on the merry-go-round. Perhaps if there were > some sort of collusion among all the providers there might possibly be > something actionable. > > But finally, this whole thread started when someone said that the > phrase "public internet" was the whole internet. You can pound your > keyboard against the cold iron of the perception of those who are > spending the money that they own and thus control the assets they paid > for. > > I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you > could possibly achieve is some sort of non-discriminatory > common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that > different classes of service would come at different prices. > > That regime is not going to arise out of some local "common law" > principle (particularly as most of the world isn't based on English > "common law" at all). It might arise at a national level via national > legislation, but as we well know the net is international and > supranational and that national law in that context is nothing more > than "mere domestic law". > > --karl-- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Aug 17 06:08:07 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:08:07 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> On 08/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Feelings aside and without judging which way it should be, > that is not true in many countries. > In particular, if you are doing business, you do *not* > have the right to discriminate arbitrarily against selected > clients in Finland I had not heard about that in Finland. But is it really as you suggest it is? Let's use the Finish railway system as test case. Does the Finish railway require riders to pay a fare? In other words, can someone walk up and demand unpaid carriage as a matter of right? And I notice that on the Finnish rail there several classes of fares, including a business class at 1.5x the standard fare. Can one demand business class carriage without paying the additional fare? The point of this is to suggest, as you suggested, that "not paying money" seems to be accepted as a reason to discriminate in Finland (as it seems to be in many other places.) Why might the carriage of packets over privately owned and operated network links and routers be any different? We somehow get the idea that the internet is free. Google, for example, is not free. It is charging a bundle (I know, because my company pays part of that bundle) for advertising, thus causing the well known pass-through of costs by advertisers onto consumers via increased prices. >> You can not demand that third party providers carry packets to and >> from your ISP. Even less do you have standing to demand that those >> third party providers give your packets equal or premier treatment. > > Actually, yes I can - ok, not premier but equal in some sense: > if they discriminate against my packets they must have a valid > reason in many countries, USA to the contrary. > (Although there are *some* restrictions even in the US against > some types of discrimination, like race- or gender-based, > if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if any such would apply here.) US law may not be quite what you think it is. Yes we do have very strong rules against many, perhaps most, kinds of discrimination by governmental bodies. However, the rules against discrimination are typically rather less strong when it comes to discrimination by private actors. (The laws in that regard are rather complex in terms of the source of the authority to impose the laws and also in their limitations vis-a-vis things like our first amendment rights of speech and religion.) >> I get the sense that you are also attempting to equate the carriage >> of IP packets over privately owned links and routers in the net as >> if those were some sort of public place, along the lines of the >> cases in which private shopping malls were equated to public streets >> for purposes of things like gathering signatures on petitions. > > Don't know about him, but the restrictions I mentioned are > rather considered "fair business practices". It is generally considered "fair" to allow denial of service to those who do not pay. I see, for example, that the Finnish postal service does require payment to carry a letter; it would not be surprising if they chose to give lesser service, or no service, to an unpaid letter. Yes, the incremental cost of carrying an internet packet is orders of magnitude smaller than carrying a paper letter. (Although the initial capital expense to build the carriage system may be rather larger for internet paths than for postal paths.) But in neither case is the cost zero. And the costs do cumulate to numbers that are substantial enough that they can't easily be dismissed into some general notion of overhead. >> You can pound your keyboard against the cold iron of the perception >> of those who are spending the money that they own and thus control >> the assets they paid for. > > There are lots of limitations on what you can do with your > property, especially if you want to do business with it. I agree. But those limitations rarely ever require that the private actor give free services. That does not mean that there are no cases where social demands do require free services. Even here in the US there are a few such cases where free service must be granted. For example, because of our awful medical system, emergency hospitals are required to accept any and all comers without concern for payment until all emergency beds are occupied. But that kind of policy tends to cause unwanted downstream effects - For example the private hospital operators - in my local community the operator is the Dominican branch of the Catholic church - has reduced the number of emergency beds so that they reach the capacity limit before they loose to much money. That means that in my somewhat isolated coastal town we often have insufficient emergency room capacity. The point of this is that no matter how much we would like otherwise, private actors are going to flow like quicksilver away from uncompensated costs. That flow may be overt and obvious like my hospital emergency room example, but it might be more subtle - as when someone simply does not consider building network capacity in the first place because they don't want to be stuck giving it away for free. With all of this discussion I may have given the impression that I'm opposed to net neutrality. Quite the contrary, I believe that net operators should not discriminate on grounds of content, source, or destination. I do, however know that different kinds of content require different handling - conversational voice being the most common example. And I also know that people won't build an adequate network service if they suspect that it could turn into an uncompensated cost hole. (Some folks think that VoIP works just fine on today's net, and that thus we can get away with an undifferentiated best-effort internet. Yes, VoIP does work today - but it does only by the fortuitous circumstance that we haven't yet filled all the pathways with competing traffic. Thus, for the moment, there is sufficient excess capacity to keep VoIP packet jitter within [barely] tolerable bounds. But that situation is unlikely to remain as providers try to squeeze more return out of their investments.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 06:08:03 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:08:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just a few general points to chime in : On *Net Neutrality* : one of the outcomes I took from the discussions in the 2010 EuroDIG (the european IGF in Madrid) is that the question could be reframed around : "*limitations to traffic management*". It combines the recognition that there is legitimate traffic management by operators (for instance to ensure QoS for VoIP or streaming video) but that there could be limitations to it, in order to preserve for instance principles of non-discrimination, transparency, enabling innovation, etc... On the notion of *Public Internet* : in many respects, the global Internet could be qualified as a "*common pool resource*" as defined in the seminal work of Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009). The framework for the collective governance of such a CPR is the multi-stakeholder model we are trying to establish (cf. the other thread on this list). Additionally, in a joint initiative with the Netherlands regarding Freedom of Expression on the Internet, France is suggesting to explore international arrangements that could give the Internet a *legal status analogous to what is used for international canals, waterways or straits* : right of free harmless transit, responsibility of the upstream actors (including governments) towards downstream actors, etc... The Council of Europe is working on similar paths with a group on trans-border issues regarding the Internet. These are very early thoughts and analogies only go so far, but it is worth exploring. Comments welcome. Best Bertrand On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions > as starting points: > > Internet: > > Public Internet: > > Internet as a public good: > > Net Neutrality: > > > > > On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: > > > When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, > it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public > Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term > non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to > know what is Internet before we pursue IG. > > Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Aug 17 06:19:09 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 03:19:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C6A621D.6060307@cavebear.com> On 08/17/2010 02:22 AM, parminder wrote: >> I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you >> could possibly achieve is some sort of >non-discriminatory >> common-carriage regime to defined classes of service but that different >> classes of service would >come at different prices. > Such a common carriage network has traditionally been called as a public > network as in '/public switched telephone network', even when operated > by private operators. / As Milton M. would point out (I'm sure he is lurking around the edges of this conversation) those private companies in the US that operate as "public utilities" frequently (and perhaps always) took that route, or allowed it to be imposed onto them, as part of a substantial quid-pro-quo that includes things like anti-trust immunity and access to public powers like eminent domain acquisition of lands or easements.) By-the-way, I have no objection to the notion that network packet contents ought to be treated as inviolable by providers. (However, I still use end-to-end encryption for most of my network packets. ;-) > The real problem is with a narrow way of looking at the meaning of > public, which simply does not hold in the present discussion, and is > IMHO only succeeding in making the discussion on public interest > regulation of the Internet even more confusing . I'm not trying to confuse things, I'm merely trying to point out that when someone writing a policy, particularly an author who is commercial, that the word "public" when prefixed to the word "internet" is a signal to count fingers and to make sure that some slight-of-hand isn't being perpetrated. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Aug 17 06:22:39 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:22:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> References: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wro > On 08/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > >In particular, if you are doing business, you do *not* > >have the right to discriminate arbitrarily against selected > >clients in Finland > > I had not heard about that in Finland. But is it really as you > suggest it is? Note the word "arbitrarily". I didn't mean to suggest there are no valid reasons for discrimination, let alone that money wouldn't be one. > Let's use the Finish railway system as test case. > The point of this is to suggest, as you suggested, that "not paying > money" seems to be accepted as a reason to discriminate in Finland > (as it seems to be in many other places.) Exactly. And I did not argue it shouldn't be - just pointed out that your statement >>> I can limit or even revoke your access at any time without notice. >>> So can every other operators, except perhaps certain governmental >>> ("public") operators. is an overstatement. > >Actually, yes I can - ok, not premier but equal in some sense: > >if they discriminate against my packets they must have a valid > >reason in many countries, USA to the contrary. > >(Although there are *some* restrictions even in the US against > >some types of discrimination, like race- or gender-based, > >if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if any such would apply here.) > > US law may not be quite what you think it is. Yes we do have very > strong rules against many, perhaps most, kinds of discrimination by > governmental bodies. However, the rules against discrimination are > typically rather less strong when it comes to discrimination by > private actors. Without claiming much knowledge about US law, in Finland (and most of Europe) rules against discrimination are fairly strong in the case of private-owned businesses as well (as opposed to individuals). -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Tue Aug 17 07:18:16 2010 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:18:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C65CD4735@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hi Bertrand Is there a report from the France-Netherlands initiative, and plan for moving forwards that you could share with us? Many thanks, Lisa From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: 17 August 2010 11:08 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions Just a few general points to chime in : On Net Neutrality : one of the outcomes I took from the discussions in the 2010 EuroDIG (the european IGF in Madrid) is that the question could be reframed around : "limitations to traffic management". It combines the recognition that there is legitimate traffic management by operators (for instance to ensure QoS for VoIP or streaming video) but that there could be limitations to it, in order to preserve for instance principles of non-discrimination, transparency, enabling innovation, etc... On the notion of Public Internet : in many respects, the global Internet could be qualified as a "common pool resource" as defined in the seminal work of Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009). The framework for the collective governance of such a CPR is the multi-stakeholder model we are trying to establish (cf. the other thread on this list). Additionally, in a joint initiative with the Netherlands regarding Freedom of Expression on the Internet, France is suggesting to explore international arrangements that could give the Internet a legal status analogous to what is used for international canals, waterways or straits : right of free harmless transit, responsibility of the upstream actors (including governments) towards downstream actors, etc... The Council of Europe is working on similar paths with a group on trans-border issues regarding the Internet. These are very early thoughts and analogies only go so far, but it is worth exploring. Comments welcome. Best Bertrand On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: Internet: Public Internet: Internet as a public good: Net Neutrality: On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ 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") ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 17 07:24:45 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:24:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> Message-ID: In message <4C6A46A2.30900 at cavebear.com>, at 01:21:54 on Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Karl Auerbach writes >Let's begin with the ultimate private right, the right to refuse. > >Are you saying that a provider *must* carry your packets? On one hand, isn't that what the much desired "Common Carrier" decrees? On the other hand, they only need to carry a random customer's packets for the duration of the period that they wish to be regarded as a public network for the purposes (and protection) of their local regulator. >That the carrier must remain in existence, even to its bankruptcy to >convey your packets? They are conveying packets for a fee. If they've messed up their commercial proposition such that they go broke, it's no different to any other bankruptcy. >Or are you saying that a provider must give non-paying non-customers >the same access to its facilities as paying customers? That would seem >to be a quick road to provider insolvency. No, the criterion is that the only "credential" required by a customer is money (rather than, for example, being an employee of a particular organisation). But the customer has to provide the money, obviously... -- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Tue Aug 17 07:36:57 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:36:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In message <4C6A54D0.6060302 at itforchange.net>, at 14:52:24 on Tue, 17 Aug 2010, parminder writes > public schools In the USA a "public school" is one run by the local council, usually free of charge at the point of delivery. In the UK a "public school" is one of the (often more upmarket) privately-run schools[3][4. But the reason they are "public" is because they will accept anyone as a student, if long as they can pay the fees[1][2]. You don't have to have some *other* specialised credential, the most obvious at the time they were founded: having a clergyman, or the local Lord of the Manor, as a parent. [1] Although there are normally some scholarships too, but let's not get distracted. [2] And if oversubscribed they may impose some sort of proficiency test, but that's very different from the "son of preacherman" test. [3] Generally run as a charity. [4] Those in my first paragraph being called "state schools". -- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 08:19:10 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:19:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? Message-ID: Dear all, Avri has triggered an interesting thread that is a recurring discussion among us. As a general input, I sense that there is strong reluctance towards the expression multistakeholderism and apparently less regarding other, like multistakeholder processes, multistakeholder model or multistakeholder approach. I'd like to understand a bit better the rationale. Is it because the use of "ism" seems to imply a sort of achieved model, a general theory, or a movement ? Let's leave aside for the moment the rest of the discussion on the value (or dangers) of the MS approach to understand better what people feel is behind the use of an "ism" termination. Anriettte has formulated a valid concern in that respect : - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil society, government and business. - this obscures diversity within each of those groups - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy way to brand processes as being democratic That concern I completely share (as my recurrent criticism of the "siloed" process in ICANN demonstrates). But is there something else regarding the use of an "ism" termination ? In any case, I personally have always felt that multistakeholderism is an ugly word in itself and much prefer multi-stakeholder governance or multistakeholder processes. But it is hard to find a better word (been struggling with that for long), even if I'm sure it is merely transitory (like "horseless carriages" before we labeled them "automobiles") As a matter of fact, *the term Governance, on its own, could be sufficient*. The WSIS has provided the now famous definition of Internet Governance that I usually summarize as follows : "IG is the multistakeholder development and application of shared regimes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet". Here, Multi-stakeholder stands for "by governments, civil society and the private sector, in their respective roles". As the discussions in the IGF demonstrate, the major challenge to define the desired "Governance Framework" is *to clarify the "respective roles" beyond the restrictive (and siloed) interpretation of the famous Article 35 or the Tunis Agenda*. Isn't it what this discussion about multistakeholderism is all about ? Not about which category of stakeholders is best, more legitimate, or more powerful, but how to ensure full participation, rules of engagement, representation of all viewpoints and clear and transparent processes. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 08:42:45 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 08:42:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Everybody is paying for internet access (or the person whose computer they are using has paid), so I don't see the usefulness of the discussion about not paying. The best analogy to fit the *general* facts here that I can think of is this one: Everybody is paying highway taxes. However, large commercial vehicles (in the USA) often have signs saying "This vehicle pays $1,592 [or similar amount] in annual road and highway taxes." I am certain I don't pay anywhere near that amount in highway taxes, the commercial truckers pay much more.. Does this mean the commercial truck can travel faster than me if it's made a deal like Google/Verizon, and get other unequal treatment and preferences when it comes to traffic laws? The net neutrality debate has a core component that asserts, to continue the metaphor above, that people and commercial outfits should "pay their way" but they cannot pay for discriminatory privileges such as a different speed limit. A bar or tavern operator is free to set prices at 25 Euros or 25 USD per drink, but can't charge a higher price to net neutrality advocates compared to commercial interests. Nor may the tavern staff INTENTIONALLY act to slow down service to one class in order to benefit another. They might sometimes do so in fact, we could suppose, on account of their hopes for tips and such, but if pressed on the matter they'd just say they were "slammed" and claim it was all time impossibility or at worst negligence. The Google Verizon style contract is one of the highest forms of intentional behavior there can be, since it is certain to be so highly-lawyered and thought through. --------------- Also, in the USA the laws that reach the private sector do so most strongly in the areas regarding equality. Slavery could never have been abolished if the 13th amendment didn't reach the private sector, segregated private clubs would still be legal, and workplace discrimination against employees (including taverns) the government would be powerless to legislate on. But clearly those laws all exist and are well settled law. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/17/10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) > wro >> On 08/17/2010 01:57 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >> >In particular, if you are doing business, you do *not* >> >have the right to discriminate arbitrarily against selected >> >clients in Finland >> >> I had not heard about that in Finland. But is it really as you >> suggest it is? > > Note the word "arbitrarily". > I didn't mean to suggest there are no valid reasons for > discrimination, let alone that money wouldn't be one. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 17 09:10:56 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 18:40:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> Bertrand, On Tuesday 17 August 2010 05:49 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > Avri has triggered an interesting thread that is a recurring > discussion among us. > > As a general input, I sense that there is strong reluctance towards > the expression multistakeholderism and apparently less regarding > other, like multistakeholder processes, multistakeholder model or > multistakeholder approach. > > I'd like to understand a bit better the rationale. Is it because the > use of "ism" seems to imply a sort of achieved model, a general > theory, or a movement ? Let's leave aside for the moment the rest of > the discussion on the value (or dangers) of the MS approach to > understand better what people feel is behind the use of an "ism" > termination. My main problem with the ism is as follows. 'Multistakeholder participation' has for long been a valid concept in democratic practice, especially in terms of gathering perspectives around specialized issues ( and generally not so much in deciding larger/ broader/ overall public interest issues where 'public interest' actors are mostly engaged)), and works clearly within, and in subordination to, traditional (representative) democratic institution and political processes. Multistakeholderism, however, seems to be a term which has taken hold largely at the global policy level, where there is admittedly a huge political vacuum, and whereby, and Avri expressly says it, multistakeholderism is considered not as just a process leading to, or inputting into, policy making, but as a process of policy making itself (or, as I like to put, of 'not making policy'). In that sense, it seeks to do away with any need for moving towards democratic political processes at the global level as well (and this has manifested at the global IG scene) which are based on equality of people and of groups of people within constitutional frameworks. What is clearly different *in any such democratic global process/ institution* vis a vis multistakeholderism is that in the former* only natural human beings and their natural collectives are recognized entities with rights and equality, and legal entities like corporates are not accepted to be at the same level. MSism however tends to do that. This is the single biggest issue with MSism,* and to go any further with this discussion, it is my sincere opinion, that we need to focus on this single issue. You solve this issue for me, I will accept MSism :). However, in my numerous discussion on MSism, those who uphold MSism generally tend to completely bypass/ ignore/ minimize this issue, which for me, and most others having suspicions about MSism, is THE central issue. This especially so because when we look at the global scene the strongest power shifts taking place today are towards mega-corps, who seen to further benefit the most from MSism. Thanks Parminder > > Anriettte has formulated a valid concern in that respect : > - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude > 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil > society, government and business. > - this obscures diversity within each of those groups > - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy > way to brand processes as being democratic > > That concern I completely share (as my recurrent criticism of the > "siloed" process in ICANN demonstrates). But is there something else > regarding the use of an "ism" termination ? > > In any case, I personally have always felt that multistakeholderism is > an ugly word in itself and much prefer multi-stakeholder governance or > multistakeholder processes. But it is hard to find a better word (been > struggling with that for long), even if I'm sure it is merely > transitory (like "horseless carriages" before we labeled them > "automobiles") > > As a matter of fact, *the term Governance, on its own, could be > sufficient*. The WSIS has provided the now famous definition of > Internet Governance that I usually summarize as follows : "IG is the > multistakeholder development and application of shared regimes that > shape the evolution and use of the Internet". Here, Multi-stakeholder > stands for "by governments, civil society and the private sector, in > their respective roles". > > As the discussions in the IGF demonstrate, the major challenge to > define the desired "Governance Framework" is *to clarify the > "respective roles" beyond the restrictive (and siloed) interpretation > of the famous Article 35 or the Tunis Agenda*. Isn't it what this > discussion about multistakeholderism is all about ? Not about which > category of stakeholders is best, more legitimate, or more powerful, > but how to ensure full participation, rules of engagement, > representation of all viewpoints and clear and transparent processes. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Aug 17 09:12:19 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:12:19 -0300 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6A8AB3.8020708@cafonso.ca> Not really boxing depending on how you consider the three groupings. If civil society is restricted to formal organizations, and the same for business, then it boxes. Civil society is organized in ways far beyond the formal non-profits (I mean registered under the laws and tax regulations of some country), in fora such as the IGF no one checks if a certain CS constituency is "valid" and formalized, and I imagine business can participate in similar ways -- and let us concede that the academics are civil society too, Charlie Brown (this is another thread of intellectual infighting :)). --c.a. On 08/17/2010 09:19 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > Avri has triggered an interesting thread that is a recurring discussion > among us. > > As a general input, I sense that there is strong reluctance towards the > expression multistakeholderism and apparently less regarding other, like > multistakeholder processes, multistakeholder model or multistakeholder > approach. > > I'd like to understand a bit better the rationale. Is it because the use of > "ism" seems to imply a sort of achieved model, a general theory, or a > movement ? Let's leave aside for the moment the rest of the discussion on > the value (or dangers) of the MS approach to understand better what people > feel is behind the use of an "ism" termination. > > Anriettte has formulated a valid concern in that respect : > - the notion of multi-stakeholderism is often associated with a crude > 'tri-partite' approach that boxes stakeholders into three groups: civil > society, government and business. > - this obscures diversity within each of those groups > - and, inclusion of representatives of these groups can become and easy > way to brand processes as being democratic > > That concern I completely share (as my recurrent criticism of the "siloed" > process in ICANN demonstrates). But is there something else regarding the > use of an "ism" termination ? > > In any case, I personally have always felt that multistakeholderism is an > ugly word in itself and much prefer multi-stakeholder governance or > multistakeholder processes. But it is hard to find a better word (been > struggling with that for long), even if I'm sure it is merely transitory > (like "horseless carriages" before we labeled them "automobiles") > > As a matter of fact, *the term Governance, on its own, could be sufficient*. > The WSIS has provided the now famous definition of Internet Governance that > I usually summarize as follows : "IG is the multistakeholder development and > application of shared regimes that shape the evolution and use of the > Internet". Here, Multi-stakeholder stands for "by governments, civil > society and the private sector, in their respective roles". > > As the discussions in the IGF demonstrate, the major challenge to define the > desired "Governance Framework" is *to clarify the "respective roles" beyond > the restrictive (and siloed) interpretation of the famous Article 35 or the > Tunis Agenda*. Isn't it what this discussion about multistakeholderism is > all about ? Not about which category of stakeholders is best, more > legitimate, or more powerful, but how to ensure full participation, rules of > engagement, representation of all viewpoints and clear and transparent > processes. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Aug 17 10:53:00 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:53:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C69ADF5.408@cavebear.com> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net>,<4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69ADF5.408@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62C163@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Great job on this, Karl! I tried to add to the pool in a previous post but I feared some of it would have been too deeply 'techie'. So I resorted to cover this with a label: "telecommunications companies have always had preferred customers and show preference in business-like practical ways". Carlton -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 4:30 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions Just so that we have something solid to chew on when talking about net neutrality, here are some of the concrete ways in which I see that providers can "engineer" (or "bias") the traffic that flows. This list is only a tiny portion of the ways that providers can "tune" their networks. I'm not trying here to be exhaustive, merely illustrative. My goal here is to suggest that when we talk about net neutrality that we ought to be able to draw clear lines from general principles to concrete things done by providers, and, importantly, vice versa. - In VoIP the choice of codec can have a big impact. And some human languages suffer greater codec degradation than do others. Just as one of my favorite singers' voice was used to tune the MP3 parameters the languages of the US and western Europe tend to have been used when creating the codecs most typically used for VoIP. With those codecs vowel-rich languages tend to work better and those languages with sharp consents tend to suffer because the rise-time/attack of those sounds are frequently chopped or softened. Asian languages tend to suffer. And I've often wondered whether African click languages become incomprehensible, particularly when the provider not only uses a vowel oriented coded but also uses the technique of removing packets that contain mostly silence. - Protocol based routing - this is very often done to segregate VoIP traffic onto paths that are not carrying big (i.e. long serialization time) packets of HTTP and its ilk. And some traffic, particularly backup jobs and the like, are not harmed by being routed via inexpensive, but slow, geosynchronous satellite paths. - Protocol based queue priority - routers are usually filled with queues of packets that are waiting to be sent on an outgoing interface. These queues can get long. And they can overflow. And there are often several queues waiting for a single physical interface. The order in which packets are inserted into queues (FIFO or preference based), the queue that is selected for insertion, the queues that get preference when the interface becomes empty (fair queueing, round-robin, etc), the drop policy (tail drop, random drop, RED, protocol-sensitive drop [e.g. don't drop TCP ACK or FIN packets]) are all among the knobs and dials available to a provider. - Aggregate limits - providers may allow up to a given amount of traffic within a certain time period and then penalize any overrun. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From LisaH at global-partners.co.uk Tue Aug 17 12:05:29 2010 From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:05:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F56@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922313@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F56@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C65CD475D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Hi all Just a quick note in relation to Wolfgang's final point below about the Internet Rights and Principles coalition... We're currently finalizing the first draft of a "Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet". The aim is to translate human rights standards to apply to the Internet, so the focus of the main section of the Charter is on the rights of individuals in relation to the Internet (whether online, connected or not currently using it). In the second section of the Charter we've started to break down overarching rights down into specific principles, and also to define who has responsibility for upholding them. This is relevant to Wolfgang's suggestion about creating guidelines for different stakeholders/actors/entities. We haven't however started doing this for participation in internet governance, although that is included as a right in the first section of the Charter in the current version. It would be great if people are interested in working on that as we move forwards. Might the APC/UNECE/CoE guidelines on participation serve as a starting point for this work? Just a small aside related to the language we're using: We've had quite a lot of discussion on the IRP list about how we refer to different stakeholders and who actually has "rights". In the coalition we're working firmly within the human rights framework which means that we're talking about the human rights of individuals. We're therefore not trying to explore or define legal rights for any other entities (e.g. states, companies), but rather focusing on their roles and responsibilities in upholding and advancing human rights. We'll be consulting on the Charter during the dynamic coalition meeting at the IGF - it would be great to have people's participation in that. All the best, Lisa ___________________________________________________________ Lisa Horner Head of Research & Policy Global Partners and Associates 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK Office: + 44 207 239 8251 Mobile: +44 7867 795859 LisaH at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: 16 August 2010 19:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; IGC; Avri Doria Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Milton Let's not confuse the transitional form with the end state. Wolfgang: Good point, Milton. The MS principle/process/dialogue is still in its infant stage. There is a long road to go. It emerged as the result of political process where governments (and private sector) realized that they can not manage the Internet alone. And it needs to be further enhanced. We moved from A to B but Z is still far away. What would be the alternative to MS? The right of the jungle? Do not forget that the IG definition of the WGIG - which calls for an inclusion of all stakeholders in IG PDP - was a compromise between the Chinese position for "governmental leadership" and the US position for "private sector leadership". The "new beast" which emerged in the WSIS process and neutralized to a certain degree this black and white-conflict was the "civil society" which matured in the WSIS process ands produced a workable policy structures (Pleanry, Content&Theme Group, WGs, Buro etc.) and demonstrated its capacity for policy making with its Civil Society WSIS Declaration from 2003. I invite everzbody to go bacxk to this document and read it and remember how it emerged. The weak point - both in the WSIS process, in the WGIG definition and also in ICANN - is that there are no procedures in place for a reasonable interaction among the stakeholders. Everything remains vague. If ALAC gives "advice" to the ICANN Board, what is the legal nature of such an ALAC advise? Insofar, Daniel makes a good point by articulating the warning, that the @inclusion@ in a dialogue with more powerful partners can be counterproductive and justify one sided power or profit oriented decisions by governments or corporations by refering to the "participation" (and consent?) of civil society in the dialogue. We know this from corrupt trade unions. But this does not speak against trade unions in general and against the usefulnees of dialogue among all involved parties, this calls for better procedures how the dialogue can be translated into policy decisions. To enhance the system there is a need to draft such procedures for interaction. The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Rights and Principles can make a good contribution by propoising a set of rights and duties for governments, private corporations and civil society in Internet Governance. Such a MS IG Declaration could become a reference for cases where one stakeholder tries to misuse the presence of another stakeholder in the dialogue to justify illegitimate actions. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email ______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Aug 17 12:07:01 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:07:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:10, parminder wrote: > However, in my numerous discussion on MSism, those who uphold MSism generally tend to completely bypass/ ignore/ minimize this issue, which for me, and most others having suspicions about MSism, is THE central issue. This especially so because when we look at the global scene the strongest power shifts taking place today are towards mega-corps, who seen to further benefit the most from MSism. I do believe that I discussed this issue. Perhaps not completely of sufficinet adequately For me what is significant about these organization is that they represent aspects of individual's participation. Just a government represent people in their identity as citizens, civil society represents people in their aspect as activists and those concerned with the myriad cil society concerns. And commercial organizations represent people as employees and stockholders (and sometimes even te interests of the customers). And this is just dealing with the the tripartite. Internet Technical organizations represent people in their identity as technical stewards of the internet. Consumer organizations represent people as consumers of the Internet. Netizen groups ..... a. Ps. in answer to Michael G's question. As many statekeholder groups as can organize and define themselves.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 12:43:43 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:43:43 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> Message-ID: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> In this scenario Avri (and others) who then represents the "public interest" that is the interest of, dare we say, the global commons, the interest of us all over and above the narrower specific interests of those with specific "stakes" in the outcome. As I understand what you are saying Avri, the reconciliation of the interests of the various stakeholders takes place in some sort of marketplace where coalitions are built etc.etc. I have a lot of questions concerning that but haven't we/aren't we suffering from a near (once and future) global economic collapse precisely because that "hidden hand" which is meant to ensure appropriately mutually beneficial outcomes from the marketplace you are pointing to in fact turned out to be a rather bullying fist appropriated for the benefit of the greedy few at the expense of the blameless many. Mike -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 9:07 AM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? On 17 Aug 2010, at 09:10, parminder wrote: > However, in my numerous discussion on MSism, those who uphold MSism > generally tend to completely bypass/ ignore/ minimize this issue, > which for me, and most others having suspicions about MSism, is THE > central issue. This especially so because when we look at the global > scene the strongest power shifts taking place today are towards > mega-corps, who seen to further benefit the most from MSism. I do believe that I discussed this issue. Perhaps not completely of sufficinet adequately For me what is significant about these organization is that they represent aspects of individual's participation. Just a government represent people in their identity as citizens, civil society represents people in their aspect as activists and those concerned with the myriad cil society concerns. And commercial organizations represent people as employees and stockholders (and sometimes even te interests of the customers). And this is just dealing with the the tripartite. Internet Technical organizations represent people in their identity as technical stewards of the internet. Consumer organizations represent people as consumers of the Internet. Netizen groups ..... a. Ps. in answer to Michael G's question. As many statekeholder groups as can organize and define themselves.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 13:11:28 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:11:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> Message-ID: On 8/17/10, Avri Doria wrote: > For me what is significant about these organization is that they represent > aspects of individual's participation. Just a government represent people in > their identity as citizens, civil society represents people in their aspect > as activists and those concerned with the myriad cil society concerns. And > commercial organizations represent people as employees and stockholders (and > sometimes even te interests of the customers). The same word "represent" is used above to denote freely elected representatives in a demecracy as well as some [nebulous] relationship whereby commercial organizations like corporations "represent" *employees* and stockholders. The use of the word "represent" in the context of corporations or commercial organizations is just wrong. Are we to believe that employees in unionized workplaces are represented by the corporation, and not the union? Just who thinks their boss has all of their best interests at heart? In addition, there certainly isn't any corporation that I'm a customer of that represents me... The only way the authority to represent is transferred is in free and fair elections. Those may exist with governments but certainly don't with corporations relative to their employees or even their managers, in most cases. Nor do corporations typically have shareholder approval for their actions. At bottom, a corporation speaks only for its Board of Directors and/or top executive officers, but even then it doesn't "represent" even these folks because the duty of the corporation is solely to make a legal profit, not to look out for even the CEO per se. The officers and directors have legal duties to the corporation including a duty of loyalty. Is the corporation "representing" that loyalty duty? A different word would seem absolutely required as between 'representing' in the democracy sense and in the corporate context. I also do not understand how (assuming the above tripartite division were valid) those persons who join civil society or corporations get two or more representations while regular voters who don't join a particular civil society group or work at a corporation get only one representation. If one person / one vote is changed to one interest / one vote, we can expect that vested interests will win every time. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Aug 17 14:26:56 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 11:26:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C6AD470.9000706@cavebear.com> On 08/17/2010 06:10 AM, parminder wrote: > ...This especially so because when we look at the global scene the > strongest power shifts taking place today are towards mega-corps, who > seen to further benefit the most from MSism. I agree. My own feelings about stakeholderism are deeply and strongly negative. See http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Aug 17 14:35:08 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:35:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992232C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >On Net Neutrality : one of the outcomes I took from the discussions in the 2010 >EuroDIG (the european IGF in Madrid) is that the question could be reframed >around : "limitations to traffic management". It combines the recognition that >there is legitimate traffic management by operators (for instance to ensure QoS >for VoIP or streaming video) but that there could be limitations to it, in order to >preserve for instance principles of non-discrimination, transparency, enabling >innovation, etc... Actually some of the most important aspects of NN had nothing to do with "traffic management" but rather with blocking/discrimination against content, applications or services based on their origin or owner. The NN movement got its first real impetus in the US from the Madison River case, in which a telco providing internet access sought to disable competing VoIP services. The idea that an Internet access provider would, like a cable TV system, assert "editorial control" over what content, services and applications we could connect to struck many of us as undesirable, and even inimical to the entire foundation of internetworking. It is an attempt to make us captive audiences for their own (higher-priced) services. This selectivity would not be a problem if the market for internet access were highly competitive; anyone who discriminated or assembled a bundle of services that was undesirable could simply be abandoned and we could move to another supplier, who would have every incentive to meet our demand for an unrestricted service. But the linkage of internet access to massive fixed investments in physical infrastructure means that there are likely to be one or two providers of broadband access - unless one unbundles the physical facility - which in turn requires the provision of nondiscriminatory access to the underlying physical facility, so the problem is just pushed back. (And of course, in many countries the state, with its blocking/filtering policies, is the worst discriminator against content, services and applications, let's not forget that.) "Traffic management" came into the picture later. (Basically after an AT&T exec started making noises about how he wanted content/services providing web-based video to pay him for expanding the pipes.) The traffic management issue became conflated with the content, services, applications blocking because people feared that traffic prioritization practices could be used in a discriminatory manner to favor certain suppliers (again, think of cable TV). Here there would not be actual blocking of services, but the improved performance associated with special traffic management arrangements could still constitute a devastating form of discrimination. Again, it would put the network operator in the inappropriate position of deciding what content, services and applications we have access to based on their business arrangements. The odd thing about this debate is that it is of course perfectly possible now for some service providers and organizations to buy more bandwidth than others. And there is absolutely nothing wrong that. If I pay $X for bandwidth N and someone else pays $2X for bandwidth 2N, fine. Indeed, any network marketplace that doesn't allow that is going to be dysfunctional. The difference, however, is that the price for bandwidth is uniform for all - so if I can afford $2X or $4x, I can get 2N or 4N bandwidth, whether or not the network operator likes me or believes my service is good. The NN issue arises because, as long as network operators have market power (and they do), they might choose to sell Yahoo 4N or 16N levels of performance and refuse to sell me the same amount, even if I am perfectly capable of paying for it. If we prohibit that kind of activity, it is a feasible and productive approach to NN. This debate is often messed up, however, because there are still extreme egalitarians (or, to put it less charitably economic ignoramuses) running around who think it's unfair for there to be any differences in resource allocation based on ability to pay, and there are even some who think it's an evil capitalist conspiracy to make anyone have to pay for anything. (I no longer waste time with debates like that, I had my share on the sidewalks of college campuses in the 1970s. ;-) --MM On the notion of Public Internet : in many respects, the global Internet could be qualified as a "common pool resource" as defined in the seminal work of Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009). The framework for the collective governance of such a CPR is the multi-stakeholder model we are trying to establish (cf. the other thread on this list). Additionally, in a joint initiative with the Netherlands regarding Freedom of Expression on the Internet, France is suggesting to explore international arrangements that could give the Internet a legal status analogous to what is used for international canals, waterways or straits : right of free harmless transit, responsibility of the upstream actors (including governments) towards downstream actors, etc... The Council of Europe is working on similar paths with a group on trans-border issues regarding the Internet. These are very early thoughts and analogies only go so far, but it is worth exploring. Comments welcome. Best Bertrand On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: Internet: Public Internet: Internet as a public good: Net Neutrality: On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Tue Aug 17 15:26:55 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 21:26:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C65CD475D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922313@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F56@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C65CD475D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> Message-ID: <1282073215.1752.368.camel@anriette-laptop> Thanks very much for mentioning the Code of Good Practice, Lisa. I will post an update. Until then people can view the Code at http://www.intgovcode.org I also attach a PDF version. Anriette On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 17:05 +0100, Lisa Hor ner wrote: > Hi all > > Just a quick note in relation to Wolfgang's final point below about > the Internet Rights and Principles coalition... > > We're currently finalizing the first draft of a "Charter of Human > Rights and Principles for the Internet". The aim is to translate > human rights standards to apply to the Internet, so the focus of the > main section of the Charter is on the rights of individuals in > relation to the Internet (whether online, connected or not currently > using it). > > In the second section of the Charter we've started to break down > overarching rights down into specific principles, and also to define > who has responsibility for upholding them. This is relevant to > Wolfgang's suggestion about creating guidelines for different > stakeholders/actors/entities. > > We haven't however started doing this for participation in internet > governance, although that is included as a right in the first section > of the Charter in the current version. It would be great if people > are interested in working on that as we move forwards. Might the > APC/UNECE/CoE guidelines on participation serve as a starting point > for this work? > > Just a small aside related to the language we're using: We've had > quite a lot of discussion on the IRP list about how we refer to > different stakeholders and who actually has "rights". In the > coalition we're working firmly within the human rights framework which > means that we're talking about the human rights of individuals. We're > therefore not trying to explore or define legal rights for any other > entities (e.g. states, companies), but rather focusing on their roles > and responsibilities in upholding and advancing human rights. > > We'll be consulting on the Charter during the dynamic coalition > meeting at the IGF - it would be great to have people's participation > in that. > > All the best, > Lisa > ___________________________________________________________ > Lisa Horner > Head of Research & Policy Global Partners and Associates > 338 City Road, London, EC1V 2PY, UK > Office: + 44 207 239 8251 Mobile: +44 7867 795859 > LisaH at global-partners.co.uk www.global-partners.co.uk > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: 16 August 2010 19:45 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Milton L Mueller; IGC; Avri Doria > Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism > > Milton > Let's not confuse the transitional form with the end state. > > Wolfgang: > Good point, Milton. The MS principle/process/dialogue is still in its infant stage. There is a long road to go. It emerged as the result of political process where governments (and private sector) realized that they can not manage the Internet alone. And it needs to be further enhanced. We moved from A to B but Z is still far away. What would be the alternative to MS? The right of the jungle? > > Do not forget that the IG definition of the WGIG - which calls for an inclusion of all stakeholders in IG PDP - was a compromise between the Chinese position for "governmental leadership" and the US position for "private sector leadership". The "new beast" which emerged in the WSIS process and neutralized to a certain degree this black and white-conflict was the "civil society" which matured in the WSIS process ands produced a workable policy structures (Pleanry, Content&Theme Group, WGs, Buro etc.) and demonstrated its capacity for policy making with its Civil Society WSIS Declaration from 2003. I invite everzbody to go bacxk to this document and read it and remember how it emerged. > > The weak point - both in the WSIS process, in the WGIG definition and also in ICANN - is that there are no procedures in place for a reasonable interaction among the stakeholders. Everything remains vague. If ALAC gives "advice" to the ICANN Board, what is the legal nature of such an ALAC advise? > > Insofar, Daniel makes a good point by articulating the warning, that the @inclusion@ in a dialogue with more powerful partners can be counterproductive and justify one sided power or profit oriented decisions by governments or corporations by refering to the "participation" (and consent?) of civil society in the dialogue. We know this from corrupt trade unions. But this does not speak against trade unions in general and against the usefulnees of dialogue among all involved parties, this calls for better procedures how the dialogue can be translated into policy decisions. > > To enhance the system there is a need to draft such procedures for interaction. The IGF Dynamic Coalition on Rights and Principles can make a good contribution by propoising a set of rights and duties for governments, private corporations and civil society in Internet Governance. Such a MS IG Declaration could become a reference for cases where one stakeholder tries to misuse the presence of another stakeholder in the dialogue to justify illegitimate actions. > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. > For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email > ______________________________________________________________________ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: COGP_IG_Version_1.1_June2010.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 217310 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 15:53:43 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:53:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <4C6A54D0.6060302@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All, On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:22 PM, parminder wrote: > Karl, > >> But finally, this whole thread started when someone said that the phrase >> "public internet" was the whole internet. > > This goes back to definitions, that we started to attempt. > > One can call any traffic carried over IP as Internet, and to me you seem to > think so. (Please correct me if I am wrong). As you note below, there are private networks that do IP networking that are not connected to the Internet. For example, the large auto manufacturers have huge networks for themselves and their suppliers that parallel the "Internet", but are not "On the Internet". These are "Internetworks", but not Internet as we commonly refer to it. > > Verizon- Google uses the term non-Internet for IP traffic which is carried > through entirely private agreements, and public Internet for IP traffic > which is subject to certain levels/ kinds of universal access, transmission > etc - which we may call as bound by a 'public contract', or by some degree > of publicness. I would prefer the term "publicly reachable" to "public Internet". > > I agree with this separation of meanings between non-Internet and the > Internet as a public space/ entity. However, as argued earlier, degrees or > manners of publicness characterizing a public space/ entity is different in > different contexts - like public parks, public roads, public schools, public > utility, public universities etc. Not all - for instance, in many cases > public utilities - are owned or operated by a public agency. Such different > uses of the term 'public' does not take away its meaning. > > There can be private enclaves within a public space, or the latter can be > connecting private spaces. For instance, a private conversation in a public > park and a road connecting houses respectively. In the case of the Internet, > similarly, the publicness of the Internet does not overrule the privateness > of an email carried by it, and also Internet of course does connect private > networks, including those using IP. Here is where you (and others) differ from folk like Karl and I in our perspective. Karl and I know that the Internet is simply, a network of networks, each run by their owner according to local policy. These owners have no public obligation to make their networks available to all and sundry. Your perspective (I think) is more on the epiphenomenal aspects of Internetworking, those that are publicly beneficial. BTW, your email is not "private" (unless encrypted) in the sense that it can be read by some MITM on the "public Internet". > > In this context, like those who wrote the Verizon-Google agreement, I am > completely able to understand the meaning of Internet as a 'public > Internet'. > > However, the agreement makes distinction between the levels of (or nature > of) publicness of the wired Internet and wireless and I do not agree with > this distinction. > > You yourself speak of, what i see as, a public Internet in your email. > >>I suggest that absent some sort of expropriation that the best you could >> possibly achieve is some sort of >non-discriminatory common-carriage regime >> to defined classes of service but that different classes of service would >> >come at different prices. > > Such a common carriage network has traditionally been called as a public > network as in 'public switched telephone network', even when operated by > private operators. Correct, and as Karl has already pointed out, telephony networks evolved in to utilities over many decades, and after being given privileged positions in the market. The Internet differs significantly in a variety of ways. IP (layer 3) can run over the physical infra of the PSTN (Layer 1 and 2). There is no international settlement regime for the Internet as there is for the PSTN, the subscriber billing system is dissimilar, it's a best effort network, etc, etc. > > The real problem is with a narrow way of looking at the meaning of public, > which simply does not hold in the present discussion, and is IMHO only > succeeding in making the discussion on public interest regulation of the > Internet even more confusing . > > Quoting from one of your earlier emails > >>However, one can take an alternative view and look at the term "public >> internet" to describe only that portion of the net >that is owned or >> operated by a public entity. Again, I prefer "publicly reachable" to "public". -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Aug 17 16:01:07 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:01:07 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F51@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8E496A26-8848-4BAB-A39D-95BFE9C74847@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F65@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear David thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach. Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Aug 17 16:06:52 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 22:06:52 +0200 Subject: [governance] NN-G-V References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922313@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F56@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C65CD475D@SERVER01.globalpartners.local> <1282073215.1752.368.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F66@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2010/08/facts-about-our-network-neutrality.html wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 17 16:30:36 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:30:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4C6AD470.9000706@cavebear.com> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> <4C6AD470.9000706@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <471408.7988.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I would truly be interested if you know of an exception to this truth.  Perhaps always can replace seem to. ________________________________ From: Karl Auerbach To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 11:26:56 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? On 08/17/2010 06:10 AM, parminder wrote: > ...This especially so because when we look at the global scene the > strongest power shifts taking place today are towards mega-corps, who > seen to further benefit the most from MSism. I agree. My own feelings about stakeholderism are deeply and strongly negative. See http://www.cavebear.com/archive/rw/igf-democracy-in-internet-governance.pdf     --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Aug 17 16:47:41 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992232C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B62BACD@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992232C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <953034.56227.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Professor, You skirt an issue very closely here with your example of "boycott" if we were truly competitive. Too often the battle cry of Neutrality is just that; a battle cry for the outsider.  When we as here argue zealously for neutrality often what we are really arguing for is the other guy or the new guy or anything but status quo.  How often did we see communism, christism or muslimism or capitalism argued the same, and always it was just a new brand of who was on top. I say "Bully" march on and put Neutrality on top. ________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Bertrand de La Chapelle ; Ginger Paque Cc: Parminder Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 11:35:08 AM Subject: RE: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions From:Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >On Net Neutrality : one of the outcomes I took from the discussions in the 2010 >EuroDIG (the european IGF in Madrid) is that the question could be reframed >around : "limitations to traffic management". It combines the recognition that >there is legitimate traffic management by operators (for instance to ensure QoS >for VoIP or streaming video) but that there could be limitations to it, in order >to > >preserve for instance principles of non-discrimination, transparency, enabling >innovation, etc... Actually some of the most important aspects of NN had nothing to do with “traffic management” but rather with blocking/discrimination against content, applications or services based on their origin or owner. The NN movement got its first real impetus in the US from the Madison River case, in which a telco providing internet access sought to disable competing VoIP services. The idea that an Internet access provider would, like a cable TV system, assert “editorial control” over what content, services and applications we could connect to struck many of us as undesirable, and even inimical to the entire foundation of internetworking. It is an attempt to make us captive audiences for their own (higher-priced) services.   This selectivity would not be a problem if the market for internet access were highly competitive; anyone who discriminated or assembled a bundle of services that was undesirable could simply be abandoned and we could move to another supplier, who would have every incentive to meet our demand for an unrestricted service. But the linkage of internet access to massive fixed investments in physical infrastructure means that there are likely to be one or two providers of broadband access – unless one unbundles the physical facility - which in turn requires the provision of nondiscriminatory access to the underlying physical facility, so the problem is just pushed back. (And of course, in many countries the state, with its blocking/filtering policies, is the worst discriminator against content, services and applications, let’s not forget that.)   “Traffic management” came into the picture later. (Basically after an AT&T exec started making noises about how he wanted content/services providing web-based video to pay him for expanding the pipes.) The traffic management issue became conflated with the content, services, applications blocking because people feared that traffic prioritization practices could be used in a discriminatory manner to favor certain suppliers (again, think of cable TV). Here there would not be actual blocking of services, but the improved performance associated with special traffic management arrangements could still constitute a devastating form of discrimination. Again, it would put the network operator in the inappropriate position of deciding what content, services and applications we have access to based on their business arrangements.   The odd thing about this debate is that it is of course perfectly possible now for some service providers and organizations to buy more bandwidth than others. And there is absolutely nothing wrong that. If I pay $X for bandwidth N and someone else pays $2X for bandwidth 2N, fine. Indeed, any network marketplace that doesn’t allow that is going to be dysfunctional. The difference, however, is that the price for bandwidth is uniform for all – so if I can afford $2X or $4x, I can get 2N or 4N bandwidth, whether or not the network operator likes me or believes my service is good. The NN issue arises because, as long as network operators have market power (and they do), they might choose to sell Yahoo 4N or 16N levels of performance and refuse to sell me the same amount, even if I am perfectly capable of paying for it. If we prohibit that kind of activity, it is a feasible and productive approach to NN.   This debate is often messed up, however, because there are still extreme egalitarians (or, to put it less charitably economic ignoramuses) running around who think it’s unfair for there to be any differences in resource allocation based on ability to pay, and there are even some who think it’s an evil capitalist conspiracy to make anyone have to pay for anything. (I no longer waste time with debates like that, I had  my share on the sidewalks of college campuses in the 1970s. ;-)   --MM   On the notion of Public Internet : in many respects, the global Internet could be qualified as a "common pool resource" as defined in the seminal work of Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009). The framework for the collective governance of such a CPR is the multi-stakeholder model we are trying to establish (cf. the other thread on this list). Additionally, in a joint initiative with the Netherlands regarding Freedom of Expression on the Internet, France is suggesting to explore international arrangements that could give the Internet a legal status analogous to what is used for international canals, waterways or straits : right of free harmless transit, responsibility of the upstream actors (including governments) towards downstream actors, etc... The Council of Europe is working on similar paths with a group on trans-border issues regarding the Internet. These are very early thoughts and analogies only go so far, but it is worth exploring. Comments welcome. Best Bertrand  On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: This discussion will be productive. Do we have any proposed definitions as starting points: Internet: Public Internet: Internet as a public good: Net Neutrality: On 8/14/2010 3:28 AM, parminder wrote: When the issues of managed services and a tiered interent are so current, it is useful to look at possible definitions of what constitutes a public Internet, or well what constitutes an Internet. (Google has used the term non-Internet services for managed services). Obviously, it is important to know what is Internet before we pursue IG. Is it possible to work on some of these issues in the IGC? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 17:04:09 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 14:04:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F65@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying, providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and 6. Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear David thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach. Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Aug 17 17:25:27 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:25:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> Message-ID: On 17 Aug 2010, at 12:43, Michael Gurstein wrote: > marketplace ... > "hidden hand" you will never catch me arguing for the so called marketplace or its hidden hand. and if this you think you do then i have been unclear. or something like that. the commons is made up of many organizations vying for survival and possibly an advantage. some few of them may be scum. but most are sincere believers in something. the so called free market is just one model. there are other models of cooperation and interaction. some models may be emergent and we may not even fully understand them yet the multistakeholder model some of us are trying to build is one such other model. i believe it can only be analogously approached using previous constructs. and so far i think it offers great promise and some first successes. it is still in its formative stages, and any presumption as to its demise (or maybe it being still born at this point) is premature and perhaps wishful thinking, in my very personal opinion. a. (yes, my role in the IGF may prejudice my outlook and commitment to the model. but i am sure i would not have the role i do if i was not a true believer) (first time i ever sent email from my seat in an airplane. what fun!) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Aug 17 17:30:25 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:30:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> Message-ID: <4E7CE1F3-DD14-417D-B345-98327FF6769C@acm.org> On 17 Aug 2010, at 13:11, Paul Lehto wrote: > represent" or represent the interests of. yes, same old chestnut over and over again and over again. what does represent really, really mean. i think it means many many things. yet another one of our overloaded words. words that we use to create gaps instead of bridges. some organizations represent people by virtue of their body count 1 anonymous vote in a dark closet. and this is a good thing some things should be done is a dark closet where no one see your tru soul but yourself but there are many ways of genuinely representing the interests of the many aspects of people, and counting bodies in the closet is but one important way. cheers. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Tue Aug 17 17:36:05 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 17:36:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 17 Aug 2010, at 17:04, Michael Gurstein wrote: > What I don't understand is on > what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, > self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) while this describe some of you. i don't think it represents most. perhaps you haven't been looking closely enough lately. need to outreach more. but this yet another old tired chestnut. that is less and less true. as the days go by. in fact, in my experience, lately the "highly educated, self-selected, > self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males" have been whinging because nobody ever picks them to do anything anymore. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Tue Aug 17 18:02:30 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:02:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> References: <4C664CAE.40908@itforchange.net> <4C66EE5F.3090905@gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <4C6B06F6.1080801@cavebear.com> On 08/17/2010 03:22 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wro >>>> I can limit or even revoke your access at any time without notice. >>>> So can every other operators, except perhaps certain governmental >>>> ("public") operators. > > is an overstatement. Really? So I would be prohibited from throwing the power switch on my web server or router? And I would be prohibited from not paying my domain name bill and letting my domain name lapse? The intrusion on personal choice that you are suggesting is, at least to ears of this Californian, rather draconian and contrary to the concept of freedom of association (an aspect of free speech which is to say the right to not speak to those to whom you do not wish to speak.) --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 18:03:56 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:03:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <78298155462F41BC8EDF459F06EEF2B6@userPC> But what exactly is a "commons" where "many organizations are vying for survival and possibly an advantage" if it isn't a marketplace. M -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:25 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? On 17 Aug 2010, at 12:43, Michael Gurstein wrote: > marketplace ... > "hidden hand" you will never catch me arguing for the so called marketplace or its hidden hand. and if this you think you do then i have been unclear. or something like that. the commons is made up of many organizations vying for survival and possibly an advantage. some few of them may be scum. but most are sincere believers in something. the so called free market is just one model. there are other models of cooperation and interaction. some models may be emergent and we may not even fully understand them yet the multistakeholder model some of us are trying to build is one such other model. i believe it can only be analogously approached using previous constructs. and so far i think it offers great promise and some first successes. it is still in its formative stages, and any presumption as to its demise (or maybe it being still born at this point) is premature and perhaps wishful thinking, in my very personal opinion. a. (yes, my role in the IGF may prejudice my outlook and commitment to the model. but i am sure i would not have the role i do if i was not a true believer) (first time i ever sent email from my seat in an airplane. what fun!) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 18:03:56 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:03:56 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <606C1D9C3452449B81702E068B89F0ED@userPC> I was referring to WSIS but my experience from Hyderabad was that it wasn't all that much different (at least among those who were "moving and shaking" the event...(and dare I say this discussion/the IGC. Maybe a few more women, a few more folks from the Global South but not too many and certainly not much more broadly representative or with any clearer lines of transparency, accountability... And I'm still waiting for a substantive answer to my question. M -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:36 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism On 17 Aug 2010, at 17:04, Michael Gurstein wrote: > What I don't understand is on > what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, > self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged > males could (and should) while this describe some of you. i don't think it represents most. perhaps you haven't been looking closely enough lately. need to outreach more. but this yet another old tired chestnut. that is less and less true. as the days go by. in fact, in my experience, lately the "highly educated, self-selected, > self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males" have been whinging because nobody ever picks them to do anything anymore. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Tue Aug 17 18:47:54 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 15:47:54 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <606C1D9C3452449B81702E068B89F0ED@userPC> References: <606C1D9C3452449B81702E068B89F0ED@userPC> Message-ID: hi, I am not sure how anyone gives a substantive answer to a question based on a false premise. a. On 17 Aug 2010, at 15:03, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I was referring to WSIS but my experience from Hyderabad was that it wasn't > all that much different (at least among those who were "moving and shaking" > the event...(and dare I say this discussion/the IGC. > > Maybe a few more women, a few more folks from the Global South but not too > many and certainly not much more broadly representative or with any clearer > lines of transparency, accountability... > > And I'm still waiting for a substantive answer to my question. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:36 PM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > > On 17 Aug 2010, at 17:04, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> What I don't understand is on >> what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, >> self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged >> males could (and should) > > > while this describe some of you. > i don't think it represents most. > > perhaps you haven't been looking closely enough lately. > > need to outreach more. > but this yet another old tired chestnut. > that is less and less true. > as the days go by. > > in fact, in my experience, lately the "highly educated, self-selected, > >> self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males" > > have been whinging because nobody ever picks them to do anything anymore. > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Aug 17 19:23:49 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:23:49 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8929B6A7DBF3401AA01F97C3D1F80912@userPC> Hmmmm... M -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 3:48 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism hi, I am not sure how anyone gives a substantive answer to a question based on a false premise. a. On 17 Aug 2010, at 15:03, Michael Gurstein wrote: > I was referring to WSIS but my experience from Hyderabad was that it > wasn't all that much different (at least among those who were "moving > and shaking" the event...(and dare I say this discussion/the IGC. > > Maybe a few more women, a few more folks from the Global South but not > too many and certainly not much more broadly representative or with > any clearer lines of transparency, accountability... > > And I'm still waiting for a substantive answer to my question. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 2:36 PM > To: IGC > Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > > On 17 Aug 2010, at 17:04, Michael Gurstein wrote: > >> What I don't understand is on >> what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, >> self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged >> males could (and should) > > > while this describe some of you. > i don't think it represents most. > > perhaps you haven't been looking closely enough lately. > > need to outreach more. > but this yet another old tired chestnut. > that is less and less true. > as the days go by. > > in fact, in my experience, lately the "highly educated, > self-selected, > >> self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males" > > have been whinging because nobody ever picks them to do anything > anymore. > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 17 22:26:21 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:56:21 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> Message-ID: <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> Avri On Wednesday 18 August 2010 02:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > in my very personal opinion. > > a. > > (yes, my role in the IGF may prejudice my outlook and commitment to the model. > but i am sure i would not have the role i do if i was not a true believer) > > True believer in MSism as a policy discussing model or a policy making model ! :) And if the IGF is ever going to be able to move anyway closer to policy making, in fact even to meaningfully input into global IG policy making, how and when ?? I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of the IGF (the latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that IGF gives out 'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does). In fact, some of those who are considered antagonist to MSism - like developing country governments, are the ones who have, and still are, advocating, some more clear and meaningful outcomes from the MS forum of the IGF. Shedding of any light on this paradox will be highly appreciated. That could help us in deciding whether MSism is a model for making (or helping make) policy, or of obstructing progressive policy making possibilities. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Tue Aug 17 23:38:06 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:38:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <4C6B06F6.1080801@cavebear.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6B06F6.1080801@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <20100818033806.GC10211@musti.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:02:30PM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wrot > On 08/17/2010 03:22 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wro > > >>>>I can limit or even revoke your access at any time without notice. > >>>>So can every other operators, except perhaps certain governmental > >>>>("public") operators. > > > >is an overstatement. > > Really? So I would be prohibited from throwing the power switch on > my web server or router? And I would be prohibited from not paying > my domain name bill and letting my domain name lapse? No. But your statement above implies you could revoke access to an individual selectively for any reason whatsoever, and that is not true if you are doing business here (Finland/Europe). Of course you can quit doing business if you want and if you're acting as a private individual in personal capacity, you are not bound by laws regulating businesses. Ditto for non-commercial associations (although even those have some more restrictions than individuals). > The intrusion on personal choice that you are suggesting is, at > least to ears of this Californian, rather draconian and contrary to > the concept of freedom of association (an aspect of free speech > which is to say the right to not speak to those to whom you do not > wish to speak.) In most of Europe (and indeed most of the world, I believe), freedom of speech is rather heavily limited when it comes to commercial activity. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Wed Aug 18 03:06:05 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 00:06:05 -0700 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <20100818033806.GC10211@musti.tarvainen.info> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6B06F6.1080801@cavebear.com> <20100818033806.GC10211@musti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <4C6B865D.4090604@cavebear.com> On 08/17/2010 08:38 PM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:02:30PM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wrot >> The intrusion on personal choice that you are suggesting is, at >> least to ears of this Californian, rather draconian and contrary to >> the concept of freedom of association (an aspect of free speech >> which is to say the right to not speak to those to whom you do not >> wish to speak.) > > In most of Europe (and indeed most of the world, I believe), freedom > of speech is rather heavily limited when it comes to commercial activity. The carriage of packets over a part of the internet is not speech, it is a service. That's why ISP is an acronym for "internet *service* provider". The speech component (do we consider things like backing up files to be speech?) is by the users, not the service providers. So the question is not about freedom of speech but about whether providers of a service have to give free service to any and all comers. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Wed Aug 18 09:28:36 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:28:36 +0600 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20100818132908.07C069056F@npogroups.org> At 08:26 AM 8/18/2010, parminder wrote: >In fact, some of those who are considered antagonist to MSism - like >developing country governments, are the ones who have, and still >are, advocating, some more clear and meaningful outcomes from the MS >forum of the IGF. > >Shedding of any light on this paradox will be highly appreciated. > >That could help us in deciding whether MSism is a model for making >(or helping make) policy, or of obstructing progressive policy >making possibilities. > >Parminder Agreed on this issue and perhaps, participants from either the government or CS (preferably from the government side) deserve to be provided with elucidated concept of the MS and they could be the leader in their countries to advocate further at the lower tier of the government. Thanking you, Hakik >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From aizu at anr.org Wed Aug 18 09:46:13 2010 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:46:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <20100818132908.55C8390587@npogroups.org> References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> <20100818132908.55C8390587@npogroups.org> Message-ID: As a latecomer to this very interesting debate, I like to share my views. First, I am not a big fan of "ism", but, as Bertrand tried, I am very much in favor of the multistakeholder process or approach, far better than UN model of governments making all decisions out of their inter-governmental negotiations, most of which at WSIS were very un-constructive so to speak, when, at least, it came to "internet governance" issues. The beauty of multistakeholder process or approach has been, in my view, all stakeholders work together to reach agreement, on one way or other. In that sense, it is not a silo model, but collaboration as the key. Excluding any major voice/stakeholder will result in a very negative, outcome and hence not accepted by all. I do agree that it is not perfect (yet) and problematic, such as democracy as it is the worst form of governance except for all those others that have been tried." It is not a proven model yet, but work in progress, and that is why it is, in a way attractive for us. izumi 2010/8/18 Hakikur Rahman : > At 08:26 AM 8/18/2010, parminder wrote: > >> In fact, some of those who are considered antagonist to MSism - like >> developing country governments, are the ones who have, and still are, >> advocating, some more clear and meaningful outcomes from the MS forum of the >> IGF. >> >> Shedding of any light on this paradox will be highly appreciated. >> >> That could help us in deciding whether MSism is a model for making (or >> helping make) policy, or of obstructing progressive policy making >> possibilities. >> >> Parminder > > Agreed on this issue and perhaps, participants from either the government or > CS (preferably from the government side) deserve to be provided with > elucidated concept of the MS and they could be the leader in their countries > to advocate further at the lower tier of the government. > > Thanking you, > Hakik > > > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > --                         >> Izumi Aizu <<           Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo            Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita,                                   Japan                                  * * * * *            << Writing the Future of the History >>                                 www.anr.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 18 09:59:13 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 06:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F65@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F51@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8E496A26-8848-4BAB-A39D-95BFE9C74847@post.harvard.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F65@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <261633.32321.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Wolgang, You bring us to the base camp to see the mountain top but leave with the map still in your hip pocket. The door is open.  It would be best if we saw the frame of that door filled with participants.  My countrymen are suffering these days from a great depression -- Our economy is just a symptom and only a secondary infection.  The depression I speak of is lack of accountability.  No not corporate, individual.  We have been steadily sinking into a dispair of non-demanding or standing for anything. We have grown delighted in our things and dissolusioned in our processes.  I fear much of our world is suffering from the same malaise.  What we must concentrate on here is in the doing of the thing and not the thing itself.  We must somehow find a way to empower people.  Not respect them because they are human, but incentivize them to respect themselves and whatever contribution they may make.  Democracy and Multistakeholderism only flourish with an active and positve desire to be a part of the process. ________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen ; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 1:01:07 PM Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear David thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach.  Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author.  That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'...  Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late.  Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes.  Whether that will 'work' is still unclear.  Power, as held by the states, is the starting point.  Will they cede and share some power?  That is the core question.  Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table.  Indeed, that is to be treasured.  Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony?  Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred.  On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity.  In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government.  Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication.  But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects.  (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject:  MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.'  But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 18 10:06:23 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:06:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4E7CE1F3-DD14-417D-B345-98327FF6769C@acm.org> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> <1F792028-3CFE-4321-8B23-E7BA478812D9@acm.org> <4E7CE1F3-DD14-417D-B345-98327FF6769C@acm.org> Message-ID: <717113.34166.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Avri, When one represents another it is simple. It is also nearly meaningless. "a fool is still a fool, the mere fact you gather them by the multitudes only aggravates the situation " Franklin  It is a protectorante role. It is an interest. What one must do here, and it is done well and sometimes not at all, is represent an Idea.  Defense or proposing the interest of an individual or group is just dandy in sales and court. But any good governance requires the noblest of representation and that is on of Ideals that are shared. ________________________________ From: Avri Doria To: IGC Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 2:30:25 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? On 17 Aug 2010, at 13:11, Paul Lehto wrote: > represent" or represent the interests of. yes, same old chestnut over and over again and over again. what does represent really, really mean. i think it means many many things. yet another one of our overloaded words. words that we use to create gaps instead of bridges. some organizations represent people by virtue of their body count 1 anonymous vote in a dark closet. and this is a good thing some things should be done is a dark closet where no one see your tru soul but yourself but there are many ways of genuinely representing the interests of the many aspects of people, and counting bodies in the closet is but one important way. cheers. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 18 10:29:40 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 07:29:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <20100818033806.GC10211@musti.tarvainen.info> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6B06F6.1080801@cavebear.com> <20100818033806.GC10211@musti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <44991.90811.qm@web83902.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think there is an interesting headliner going round in the US that directly addresses this issue in reality.  A talk show host used language that is a no no but perfectly legal.  She is basically quitting after decades.  She is not banned or forced to quit. She has other endeavors to move into. The censorship came from sponsors of her show. They pulled out -- makes no $$$$ difference to this gal, her ratings are up.  But she just does not want to deal with the megacorp censorship by sponsorship crap anymore.  It does remind us that government has far less to do with truly free speech than does business. (for reference it is some lady known as Dr. Laura) ________________________________ From: Tapani Tarvainen To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tue, August 17, 2010 8:38:06 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:02:30PM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) wrot > On 08/17/2010 03:22 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > >On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) >wro > > >>>>I can limit or even revoke your access at any time without notice. > >>>>So can every other operators, except perhaps certain governmental > >>>>("public") operators. > > > >is an overstatement. > > Really?  So I would be prohibited from throwing the power switch on > my web server or router?  And I would be prohibited from not paying > my domain name bill and letting my domain name lapse? No. But your statement above implies you could revoke access to an individual selectively for any reason whatsoever, and that is not true if you are doing business here (Finland/Europe). Of course you can quit doing business if you want and if you're acting as a private individual in personal capacity, you are not bound by laws regulating businesses. Ditto for non-commercial associations (although even those have some more restrictions than individuals). > The intrusion on personal choice that you are suggesting is, at > least to ears of this Californian, rather draconian and contrary to > the concept of freedom of association (an aspect of free speech > which is to say the right to not speak to those to whom you do not > wish to speak.) In most of Europe (and indeed most of the world, I believe), freedom of speech is rather heavily limited when it comes to commercial activity. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 11:17:23 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:17:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In the same time, it is precisely because MS processes have (so far) applied for "gathering perspectives around specialized issues" that I think inevitably you'll have to accept the direct participation of 'non-natural' or legal entities as opposed to natural individuals and citizens. For the point then is precisely to get the most informed advice possible, irrespective of the source. So (returning to the broader question) the problem is less one of 'who's who' and 'who is or is not a legitimate participant' and more one of process. As a reminder, multistakeholder (sure, not the best word one can dream of) says *multi*-stakeholder, not *tri*-stakeholder. At this time, many participants - probably most - seem to go along with the idea that there are three main stakeholder groups but obviously we know that doesn't necessarily have to be, and will probably not always be, that way. I believe things are and should be more fluid than when we try to categorize them with fuzzy labels. First, ultimate authority to make public policy lies with the government, still at this point. And government will always have a competitive advantage on that front as long as only it has the authority to enforce the law. So how do we get from here to full, or nearly full, multistakeholder policymaking? As things stand, it will obviously depend on how able the other groups are to weigh on governments. Second, private business and corporations are crucial for a nation's economical health by creating wealth and employment. Whether we like it or not, any democratic government would rather preside over a thriving and innovative economy (and for their nation first, before they worry about the global, unless the national largely depends on the global). So governments have obvious good reasons to listen and support private business interests while making policy. Third: What is civil society's value proposition? It is up to CS -- and all remaining part of the *multi-* -- to make its case and choose its strategies. I'm not sure what people mean when they talk about full multistakeholder (not just process or participation but actual) policymaking, or CS being on "equal footing" with the government. I don't know whether that implies that we're fighting or should be fighting for up to a seat around the signing table with the signature of CS delegates alongside those of government on the decision documents. Also, it seems vain to me that anyone spend energy arguing that CS is or should be the one most legitimate party whose views governments should take into account over others' while making decisions. But I suspect possible paths to ensure decision outcomes are as multistakeholder as possible would require CS talking to/ petitioning/ lobbying/ pressuring/ etc. not only governments, but also private business and any other possible parties. To the extent that those other parties are not by themselves ready to fully embrace CS views, the onus will be on CS to show governments how doing away with CS views might be damaging to the polity and to them, and business how supporting CS inputs (at least some of them) might be good for their long term interests (if only because CS might expose their anti-citizen behaviors otherwise), etc. To start -- not sure if this has already been done, as I've had my hiatus with these discussion, but...-- this WSIS-generated CS coalition would already make history if it only manages to come up with clearly defined formative principles with regard to what 'public interest' might be when it comes to policymaking towards information society, and further principles or rules that should be observed to ensure that public interest and CS basic values be included in any policymaking process and decision. Just something parsimonious, fundamental, without verbiage, as one would do for a constitutional preamble or bill of... norms, so to speak. Mawaki On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, parminder wrote: > My main problem with the ism is as follows. 'Multistakeholder participation' > has for long been a valid concept in democratic practice, especially in > terms of gathering perspectives around specialized issues ( and  generally > not so much in deciding larger/ broader/ overall public interest issues > where 'public interest' actors are mostly engaged)), and works clearly > within, and in subordination to, traditional (representative) democratic > institution and political processes. > ........... What is clearly > different in any such democratic global process/ institution vis a vis > multistakeholderism is that in the former only natural human beings and > their natural collectives are recognized entities with rights and equality, > and legal entities like corporates are not accepted to be at the same level. > MSism however tends to do 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 11:31:04 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:31:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Net neutrality: Definitions In-Reply-To: <20100818033806.GC10211@musti.tarvainen.info> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEA3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70739922312@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4C69CB6E.7050703@cavebear.com> <4C6A46A2.30900@cavebear.com> <20100817085703.GC19245@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6A5F87.10301@cavebear.com> <20100817102239.GB24728@hamsu.tarvainen.info> <4C6B06F6.1080801@cavebear.com> <20100818033806.GC10211@musti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: This discussion (such as the one below) is a bit vague about exactly what component of the internet we're hypothetically discussing could or could not be denied by a private company to a user, but if we are talking about a component that a company has a de facto monopoly on, and without which the user's experience would not be the same, then the regulatory authority regarding monopolies is a quantum leap greater than regulatory authority in the case of non-monopoly. In the case of monopoly, a private owner is usually highly regulated (or, if not, the government has the authority to so regulate) and the normal political instincts and normal business judgment being brought to play in opinions given on these examples would not be a fair guide to what happens or can happen in the case of monopoly. I once sued a notorious spammer and the newspaper covered the filing of the suit. Within 24 hours, the upstream connectivity of the spammer was terminated by Verizon on grounds of illegal activity. This was like a nuclear bomb to the activities of the spammer, and faster by far than the justice system, yet despite my dislike of this spammer I didn't approve of Verizon's precipitous action since nothing had been proved (yet). But it was NOT a case of monopoly because the spammer was able to find a competitor to provide the same service and he was back in business within a few days. I have a real problem with any private company being able to terminate service based on even a fact-checked newspaper article, since my personal opinion of their merit is, on principle, irrelevant. The terminated person could just as easily be an internet-radio station I supported and believed was disseminating indispensable news and opinion. As in the case of privatized prisons and things like that, when the private sector runs something that is normally a public or governmental function, constitutional rights and principles follow, and the change of ownership doesn't control. Thus, this "public" "private" debate is with us to stay, regardless of whether any one things things are "hard to define." Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/17/10, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:02:30PM -0700, Karl Auerbach (karl at cavebear.com) > wrot >> On 08/17/2010 03:22 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:08:07AM -0700, Karl Auerbach >> > (karl at cavebear.com) wro >> >> >>>>I can limit or even revoke your access at any time without notice. >> >>>>So can every other operators, except perhaps certain governmental >> >>>>("public") operators. >> > >> >is an overstatement. >> >> Really? So I would be prohibited from throwing the power switch on >> my web server or router? And I would be prohibited from not paying >> my domain name bill and letting my domain name lapse? > > No. But your statement above implies you could revoke access to an > individual selectively for any reason whatsoever, and that is not true > if you are doing business here (Finland/Europe). > > Of course you can quit doing business if you want and if you're > acting as a private individual in personal capacity, you are > not bound by laws regulating businesses. > Ditto for non-commercial associations (although even those have > some more restrictions than individuals). > >> The intrusion on personal choice that you are suggesting is, at >> least to ears of this Californian, rather draconian and contrary to >> the concept of freedom of association (an aspect of free speech >> which is to say the right to not speak to those to whom you do not >> wish to speak.) > > In most of Europe (and indeed most of the world, I believe), freedom > of speech is rather heavily limited when it comes to commercial activity. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 11:50:38 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:50:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 8/18/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > In the same time, it is precisely because MS processes have (so far) > applied for "gathering perspectives around specialized issues" that I > think inevitably you'll have to accept the direct participation of > 'non-natural' or legal entities as opposed to natural individuals and > citizens. For the point then is precisely to get the most informed > advice possible, irrespective of the source. > > So (returning to the broader question) the problem is less one of > 'who's who' and 'who is or is not a legitimate participant' and more > one of process. Your entire post here is quite thoughtful, but above you point to one of the most important dividing lines, one that I think perhaps we ca develop at least a rough consensus on. As I believe Parmnder also pointed to, it matters a great deal whether MS is an "adjunct" to final democratic decision -- such as an advisory board or a specific issue task or working group -- or whether it drifts or is designed into de facto policy-making, either directly or because democratic bodies function only act in a perfunctory way or in a rubber stamp fashion, without any real meaningful opportunity to modify the MS recommendations after discussion. One main reason the bureaucratic state gets set up from within a nominal democracy is that lawmakers fear or disfavor accountability, so they "delegate" authority to an administrative agency to develop regulations (laws), to enforce regulations (executive functions) and often to adjudicate regulatory violations (its own "informal" "administrative law" court system). In one fell swoop a democracy based on separation of powers suddenly has all three powers in one bureaucracy, the bureaucracy getting to be lawmaker, prosecutor, judge, jury and hangman. MS often takes the form of "blue ribbon" panels. It is often thought the "blue ribbon" status and the length of deliberations in the MS process is a good excuse for the democratic representatives to rubber stamp the work. The truth is both yes, and no. NO matter how many blue ribbons the MS panel has there's no excuse for rubber stamping the panel unless its work appears perfect after study and vigorous democratic debate. In my view, which I believe is shared by many, MS can never substitute for democratic control, and also can't be allowed to become the political bosses that call the shots for placeholding elected representatives. The existence of unelected 'political bosses' is one of the most perennial problems of governance certainly in the USA, and, I believe, worldwide. A tripartite MS panel is a perfect way for political bosses to gain more legitimacy through "open disguise," for the government has seemingly already had its say in its 1/3 representation, so it would be redundant and a waste of time to rehash all the issues, assuming there's a final "democratic" vote on the matter at a governmental level. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Aug 18 13:05:49 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:05:49 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F79@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear Michael you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between (traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy (including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making) is deepening democracy or not? What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms") 1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not) 2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know when governments follow strong lobbying by industry. 3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table. If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer? Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the issue and are immune against corruption. Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative principles have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in drafting such principles). As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder (or try to substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation where different perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions (which means balance of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and fair to all parties. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism Wolfgang, This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying, providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and 6. Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear David thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach. Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 14:23:30 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 11:23:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F79@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <3FD0818B24BA456A9FC808FE1D1751B3@userPC> Wolfgang, (I think I asked you first... but anyway...;-) This is a bizarre theory of government you are suggesting. Government, at least democratic governments are not (at least in principle) "stakeholders"... They don't or at least shouldn't have an independent "stake" in the outcomes of governance, rather they are the crucible through which the democratic citizenry expresses their voice as to desireable outcomes in public policy/decision making. The citizens give individual elected governments the right to manage the public interest on their behalf using government public services as their agents through regular and democratically conducted elections. The citizens have the right to remove the mandate from those elected governments as they choose if they don't think that they are executing or managing the public interest appropriately as they understand this (civics 101). Elected governments have an ambition to stay in power and thus act so as to develop and implement public policies of interest to the various active and effective stakeholders (business, civil society etc.) in such a way that these "stakeholders" in turn will provide the necessary support (financial, human resource support in elections) to allow governments to run successful campaigns and remain in power. Thus they consult with, accept representations from, are influenced by these various "stakeholders" (self-interested parties) but this process does not include transferring decision making responsibiliity to any of those parties. (Under many circumstances this would in fact be illegal and seen as corrupt practice.) The above sometimes gets distorted (sometimes wildly distorted) because of the cost and complexity of running modern elections/governments but at least that's the theory and in reasonably well-ordered democracies things operate more or less on that principle. The fact that many are disillusioned with the practices of certain specific (democratic) governments doesn't to my mind negate the principles of democractic practice which seem to me to be provide the greatest good for the greatest number overall. It does however, suggest that in those countries where there is concern, those with an interest in making the operations better should develop ways of enhancing the democratic process. Digital tools now provide a variety of new ways for achieving enhanced ("deepened"?) democracy as for example through facilitating rapid communication and widespread access to information. This in turn enhances the possibility of citizens (and thus electors) having for example greater access to information, means of ensuring accountability on the part of their elected representatives and transparency of the various processes of governmental operations and administration. I'm sure this sounds incredibly simple minded to most of you folks but it is probably worth repeating here simply as an antidote to what appear to be some serious misunderstandings of how (democratic) governments in principle (and to a very considerable degree in many many instances) in fact do/should are legally obliged to operate. As for ways forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way forward as being the establishment of some frameworks for global governance (perhaps in specific identified areas) with clear rules of operation/legitimacy/participation and means for enforcement. Those rules may be (perhaps need to be) supranational but it can't I think for reasons that should be obvious, be left to decisions by those who (have the means and interest) to show up and participate. The problem with with leaving it to those who show up (and in the absence of rules) is that those with the resources and the specific "stake" i.e. return from the outcome will find whatever means necessary to realize their ends and ultimately dominate the process. And those with less of a focused "stake" (viz. the public) will inevitably lose out. (Microsoft's apparently successful suborning of various global/national standards setting processes to serve their specific product promotion interests is an obvious example.) Again in response to your question, the rules going forward need to be based on a clear recognition that the over-arching value is support for the (global) public interest and ensuring that the development of those rules are based on the broadest possible and democratic inclusion into the definition of what the public interest is in specific areas. Best to all, Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:06 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear Michael you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between (traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy (including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making) is deepening democracy or not? What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms") 1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not) 2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know when governments follow strong lobbying by industry. 3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table. If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer? Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the issue and are immune against corruption. Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative principles have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in drafting such principles). As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder (or try to substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation where different perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions (which means balance of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and fair to all parties. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism Wolfgang, This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying, providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and 6. Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear David thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach. Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From natasha at apc.org Wed Aug 18 14:55:39 2010 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:55:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing panels of the 5th IGF Message-ID: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and closing sessions, and he confirmed that we need to propose names to fill the CS stakeholder slot on the two panels in question. The IGF secretariat would like more than one name (per panel) to consider, so it can balance the diversity criteria among/of the panelists. I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or Ginger, I'm handing this over to you to coordinate/collate then. I hope thats in order. Regards, Natasha //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 15:06:46 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:06:46 +0500 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, As I am surely going to be there, I am available for placement if needed! Just need to book some place to stay there now! On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Natasha Primo wrote: > Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), > > Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and closing sessions, > and he confirmed that we need to propose names to fill the CS stakeholder > slot on the two panels in question. The IGF secretariat would like more than > one name (per panel) to consider, so it can balance the diversity criteria > among/of the panelists. > > I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or Ginger, I'm > handing this over to you to coordinate/collate then. I hope thats in order. > > Regards, > Natasha > > > //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ > Natasha Primo > Association for Progressive Communications > Johannesburg, South Africa > Tel/Fax: +27118372122 > Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at nic.br Wed Aug 18 15:14:29 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:14:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> Message-ID: <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> Dear All, I never like self nomination. rgds Hartmut =================================== On 18/8/2010 15:55, Natasha Primo wrote: > Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), > > Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and closing > sessions, and he confirmed that we need to propose names to fill the > CS stakeholder slot on the two panels in question. The IGF secretariat > would like more than one name (per panel) to consider, so it can > balance the diversity criteria among/of the panelists. > > I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or Ginger, > I'm handing this over to you to coordinate/collate then. I hope thats > in order. > > Regards, > Natasha > > > //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ > > Natasha Primo > Association for Progressive Communications > Johannesburg, South Africa > Tel/Fax: +27118372122 > Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From natasha at apc.org Wed Aug 18 15:25:59 2010 From: natasha at apc.org (Natasha Primo) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:25:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing panels of the 5th IGF In-Reply-To: <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Hartmut. Just so we're clear: I'm not nominating myself :) Natasha On 18 Aug 2010, at 9:14 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > Dear All, > > I never like self nomination. > > rgds > > Hartmut > > =================================== > On 18/8/2010 15:55, Natasha Primo wrote: >> >> Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), >> >> Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and closing >> sessions, and he confirmed that we need to propose names to fill >> the CS stakeholder slot on the two panels in question. The IGF >> secretariat would like more than one name (per panel) to consider, >> so it can balance the diversity criteria among/of the panelists. >> >> I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or >> Ginger, I'm handing this over to you to coordinate/collate then. I >> hope thats in order. >> >> Regards, >> Natasha >> >> >> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ >> \//\\//\\//\/ >> Natasha Primo >> Association for Progressive Communications >> Johannesburg, South Africa >> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\ \//\\//\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at nic.br Wed Aug 18 15:37:50 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:37:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> Message-ID: <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> Hi Natasha, My message was not related to your name ...! all the best Hartmut =================================== On 18/8/2010 16:25, Natasha Primo wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Hartmut. Just so we're clear: I'm not nominating myself :) > > Natasha > > > On 18 Aug 2010, at 9:14 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > >> >> Dear All, >> >> I never like self nomination. >> >> rgds >> >> Hartmut >> >> =================================== >> On 18/8/2010 15:55, Natasha Primo wrote: >>> Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), >>> >>> Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and closing >>> sessions, and he confirmed that we need to propose names to fill the >>> CS stakeholder slot on the two panels in question. The IGF >>> secretariat would like more than one name (per panel) to consider, >>> so it can balance the diversity criteria among/of the panelists. >>> >>> I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or >>> Ginger, I'm handing this over to you to coordinate/collate then. I >>> hope thats in order. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Natasha >>> >>> >>> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ >>> >>> Natasha Primo >>> Association for Progressive Communications >>> Johannesburg, South Africa >>> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >>> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ > Natasha Primo > National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative > Association for Progressive Communications > Johannesburg, South Africa > Tel/Fax: +27118372122 > Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo > > > > > > > > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 16:44:05 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:14:05 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> Message-ID: <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 17:00:12 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:30:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] Multistakeholder discussions and 'output' Message-ID: <4C6C49DC.2050701@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Aug 18 17:35:20 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:35:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] WSJ & Google References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F7E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423294099527212.html?KEYWORDS=schmidt#printMode 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 18 20:42:20 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:42:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <110B67C9-99AF-4B8F-ACE5-55FD76992180@acm.org> <4C68D173.5000400@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F51@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <8E496A26-8848-4BAB-A39D-95BFE9C74847@post.harvard.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F65@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <261633.32321.qm@web83910.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <327453.81676.qm@web83912.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Paul, Your point below is well taken. I suppose it is more complicated than a sound bite slogan. What I am referring to is the taking to task of the corporations. Government is doing what government does. Corporations are doing what corporations do. The checks and balances are in place. But just as these checks and balances only work with free press and good judiciary they also require individuals to drive all of the above. At this point in globalization and WTO and world bank and UN auspices the megabusiness end is well a running machine. The Judiciary is being bypassed by a technology age that makes the drudging of precedence and deliberation at snails pace damn near irrelevant -- anticybersquatting and the UDRP as examples. Politicians cannot find a niche or angle for the net and so are not moving in that direction as to priorities. News is boring, the internet stories are like reading baseball stats without ever watching the game. So it takes individual action. Strong willed intelligent people who do not need kudos at every turn. It is like a time of war where policy makers must be both warriors and statesmen although here and now it is more like Lawyers and Engineers and International mediators. Individuals have not stepped up. Corporate greed avarice and downright thievery is rampant because the checks on it are watching youtube and TV and not taking it personal. Legislatures cannot keep up with the new scams and infringements (not of patents but rights) because we are not making them. So if you are going to enjoy the protection of a mean pit bull guard dog like corporations, you have to take responsibility to train it and discipline it. On 8/18/10, Eric Dierker wrote: >No not corporate, individual. I could more readily agree if you did not mean to exclude lack of corporate accountability as a problem, but instead meant to emphasize your point, regarding lack of individual accountability. Can you clarify? -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 18 20:48:54 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 17:48:54 -0700 (PDT) Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F79@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F79@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <517876.27168.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> If a man carries weight and the day, rather than an Idea or suggestion -- then all the negative below occurs. If people are elevated as though the fact it is their opinion counts and not the merit then you have double the negative below. If however you champion the idea and not the position or speaker then you have none of the negative below. There are not just your 3 choices - if only there were. You left out where groups develop policy and then advocate it to the duly elected representatives -- that is in fact what I would call multistakeholderism. ________________________________ From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein ; governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Wed, August 18, 2010 10:05:49 AM Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear Michael you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between (traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy (including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making) is deepening democracy or not? What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms") 1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not) 2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know when governments follow strong lobbying by industry. 3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table. If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer? Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the issue and are immune against corruption. Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative principles have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in drafting such principles). As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder (or try to substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation where different perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions (which means balance of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and fair to all parties. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism Wolfgang, This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying, providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and 6. Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear David thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach. Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 20:22:02 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:22:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F79@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F79@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: If we just expand the number of "stakeholders" some more, before long pretty much everyone with an "interest" or "stake" in the outcome will have a seat at the table. At that point, the only folks left out will be those solely concerned with the public interest and nothing more (not even fundraising in civil society to lobby for the public interest). These people have no stake in the outcome. Then democracy will truly have been "deepened" more than ever before, eh? Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/18/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Dear Michael > > you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between > (traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy > (including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making) > is deepening democracy or not? > > What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms") > > 1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes > decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not) > > 2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know > when governments follow strong lobbying by industry. > > 3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected > parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table. > > If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer? > > Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in > the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the > issue and are immune against corruption. > > Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among > the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative > principles have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in > drafting such principles). > > As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is > concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize > conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be > stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder > (or try to substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation > where different perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions > (which means balance of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and > fair to all parties. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > > Wolfgang, > > This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of > WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... > > I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying, > providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very > valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on > what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, > self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) > somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion > actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making > concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). > > The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in > Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute > for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with > your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability > which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer > programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice > however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying > parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not > work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the > several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and > 6. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > Dear David > > thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and > "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first > and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. > > Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In > international relations governments represent our nations. In a one > stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will > listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under > the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is > difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a > given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise > from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits > in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate > the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime > representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in > Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his > best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately > the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open > minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices > and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a > multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and > can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but > the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable > results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is > the core of the multistakeholder approach. > > Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was > removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step > strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS > process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as > silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to > participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for > recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step > 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. > > We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the > start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is > important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit > and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the > various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among > the stakholders have to be developed. > > BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure > companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", > that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in > healthcare. :-))) > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] > Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > > > >> I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit >> playing with words > > This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That > author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions > to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality > exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care > to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and > evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. > > MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try > and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether > that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is > the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the > core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS > some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also > created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing > which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for > that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? > > There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much > larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for > expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global > polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed > a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new > forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states > per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so > far in place. > > As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But > people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be > turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end > effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked > out detail for what will replace representative forms of > governance. > > This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might > indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, > realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what > forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? > > Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as > here. > > David ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 22:16:14 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:16:14 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> Message-ID: Hello: I would like to nominate Marilia Maciel and Ginger Paque to treat with the issues raised below. Thanks, Tracy On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > I was about to reply to Natasha when Hartmut's post came in. I would say: > > Thanks, Natasha, for this important news. > > Everyone: May we please have nominations for consideration for Opening and > Closing session CS speakers? > > I am sure my biases will show here, but I think we should prefer two women > and two men, or three women, one man, in order to balance the overall > speaker selection (taking into account two nominations for each slot). > > Geographically, I think we particularly need someone from Latin > America/Caribbean as an underrepresented region. > > Other general guidelines and suggestions welcome. > > I personally do not mind self-nominations, but people should take Hartmut's > comment into consideration, as he is probably not the only one who feels > that way. If you would like to be considered, perhaps you should discuss it > with a colleague and ask them to nominate you if they think it is > appropriate. To maintain partiality, I will not nominate anyone. > > Please post your nominations and suggestions as soon as possible. I will > check with Markus to define the final date for our submission. > > Thanks, any other comment, Jeremy? > Best, Ginger > > > > > > On 8/18/2010 3:07 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > > Hi Natasha, > > My message was not related to your name ...! > > all the best > > Hartmut > > =================================== > On 18/8/2010 16:25, Natasha Primo wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks Hartmut. Just so we're clear: I'm not nominating myself :) > > Natasha > > > On 18 Aug 2010, at 9:14 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > > Dear All, > > I never like self nomination. > > rgds > > Hartmut > > =================================== > On 18/8/2010 15:55, Natasha Primo wrote: > > Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), > > Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and closing sessions, > and he confirmed that we need to propose names to fill the CS stakeholder > slot on the two panels in question. The IGF secretariat would like more than > one name (per panel) to consider, so it can balance the diversity criteria > among/of the panelists. > > I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or Ginger, I'm > handing this over to you to coordinate/collate then. I hope thats in order. > > Regards, > Natasha > > > //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ > > Natasha Primo > Association for Progressive Communications > Johannesburg, South Africa > Tel/Fax: +27118372122 > Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ > Natasha Primo > National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative > Association for Progressive Communications > Johannesburg, South Africa > Tel/Fax: +27118372122 > Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chad at apc.org Wed Aug 18 22:54:08 2010 From: chad at apc.org (Chad Lubelsky) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:54:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] Discussion summaries? In-Reply-To: <4C6C49DC.2050701@gmail.com> References: <4C6C49DC.2050701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <33C62FA2-C678-4BEB-9C07-B02C4E06C558@apc.org> Hi everyone, > Thank you for the wonderful discussions and interventions in the > latest IGC posts. I have benefited very much from them. I too have benefitted from the discussions but at the same time I find both the volume of emails + the nuanced nature of some of the conversation means I have a hard time keeping up. My feeling is that this might be inhibiting broader participation and even understanding of the issues at hand. I was chatting with Ginger and we both like the idea of having discussion summaries but recognize that that is a significant task for any one person to take on (although if there is a volunteer that would be great!). We then thought it might be more feasible to ask individual contributors to synthesize their own contributions. Drilling down to the essence of everyone's arguments might bring enhanced clarity to the discussion and also open the door to more diverse participation. Thoughts? Chad ---- Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator Association for Progressive Communications Montreal, Canada chad at apc.org - --- APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 18 23:03:51 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 23:03:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Discussion summaries? In-Reply-To: <33C62FA2-C678-4BEB-9C07-B02C4E06C558@apc.org> References: <4C6C49DC.2050701@gmail.com> <33C62FA2-C678-4BEB-9C07-B02C4E06C558@apc.org> Message-ID: Even better would be for discussants to summarize the points of someone from the OTHER side - fairly, then the original speaker gets to tweak the final summary for accuracy. This act of summarization would itself further understanding because everyone has to "listen" more closely than usual in order make a fair summary. Hey, until one understand the other side's arguments, one doesn't truly understand the issues! On 8/18/10, Chad Lubelsky wrote: > Hi everyone, > >> Thank you for the wonderful discussions and interventions in the >> latest IGC posts. I have benefited very much from them. > > I too have benefitted from the discussions but at the same time I find > both the volume of emails + the nuanced nature of some of the > conversation means I have a hard time keeping up. My feeling is that > this might be inhibiting broader participation and even understanding > of the issues at hand. > > I was chatting with Ginger and we both like the idea of having > discussion summaries but recognize that that is a significant task for > any one person to take on (although if there is a volunteer that would > be great!). We then thought it might be more feasible to ask > individual contributors to synthesize their own contributions. > Drilling down to the essence of everyone's arguments might bring > enhanced clarity to the discussion and also open the door to more > diverse participation. > > Thoughts? > > Chad > > > ---- > > Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator > Association for Progressive Communications > Montreal, Canada > chad at apc.org - > > --- > > APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org > Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! > ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! > Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > > > > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Aug 18 23:05:53 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:05:53 +0800 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <3FD0818B24BA456A9FC808FE1D1751B3@userPC> References: <3FD0818B24BA456A9FC808FE1D1751B3@userPC> Message-ID: <0E271049-8351-4621-8E59-EC82E42D212A@ciroap.org> On 19/08/2010, at 2:23 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > As for ways forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way forward > as being the establishment of some frameworks for global governance (perhaps > in specific identified areas) with clear rules of > operation/legitimacy/participation and means for enforcement. Those rules > may be (perhaps need to be) supranational but it can't I think for reasons > that should be obvious, be left to decisions by those who (have the means > and interest) to show up and participate. The problem with with leaving it > to those who show up (and in the absence of rules) is that those with the > resources and the specific "stake" i.e. return from the outcome will find > whatever means necessary to realize their ends and ultimately dominate the > process. I haven't been participating in this discussion, because I don't want to stick too much of an oar in while I'm co-coordinator, but I've been avidly reading and there have been many pearls of wisdom exchanged. I'll just pipe up briefly here to add one short +1 to this, and to make a couple of related remarks. I agree that civil society must promote the adoption of a framework for further democratising global governance (for which "multistakeholderism" is just a convenient and slightly inaccurate shorthand), beyond the Internet governance regime, in which it is really just a test-bed. Agreeing with Wolfgang, and disagreeing slightly with Parminder, for me the inclusion of the three stakeholder groups in multi-stakeholder structures has never been about increasing the power of the private sector, but on the contary, balancing it. The private sector already has the ear of governments, and by promoting multistakeholderism we ask nothing more than for the same privilege. In Internet governance, we already have a good basic starting point for such a framework in the WSIS process criteria and the IGF's (unfulfilled) mandate to assess the performance of Internet governance institutions against these criteria. Beyond that, the framework is being taken forward by efforts like the UNECE/CoE/APC Code of Good Practice on information, participation and transparency in Internet governance (already referred to in this thread, http://www.intgovcode.org/). Other regimes are very far behind. I have just written a paper in which I argue for the development of global principles for governance of the global regime on intellectual property, in view of the threat of ACTA, whose negotiators not only flout basic principles of democratic global governance, but also feign ignorance that they are doing so. One of our workshops (Parminder's) will deal with this in detail too. My fear, though, is that whilst Internet governance is, as I've said, just a test-bed for multistakeholderism, if it doesn't soon prove its value then it will not only have been born there but will die there as well, and end up with no more currency in global governance discourse than communism or anarchism. In this respect I respectfully can't agree with Ginger (another reason I'm piping up now!) about the need to constrain the IGF from producing "results". The fears about "the pressure of negotiations or the need for an agreed-upon end 'result'", whilst not unfounded, should be systematically confronted and addressed rather than fatalistically accepted. It is more important that multi-stakeholderism works (and for us, not just for the incumbent powers) rather than that it doesn't rock the boat. And by "works", we mean that we need to have an appreciable impact on shaping actual public policy decisions at a global level. At the moment, we quite simply don't (research presented at last year's workshop on "Identifying the Impact" demonstrated this, and the UNSG's recent remarks also acknowledge it). In fact there are many ways in which the power of governments and other powerful actors to screw up the process can be defused. I've written about these ad nauseum and I don't intend to do so again here, but read again the summary I wrote for the IGP for a refresher if you are interested (http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). With that out of the way, I'll re-lurk and leave you all to continue these very productive and interesting discussions. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur 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 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Aug 18 23:25:38 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:25:38 +0800 Subject: [governance] Discussion summaries? In-Reply-To: <33C62FA2-C678-4BEB-9C07-B02C4E06C558@apc.org> References: <4C6C49DC.2050701@gmail.com> <33C62FA2-C678-4BEB-9C07-B02C4E06C558@apc.org> Message-ID: <1C0B9E53-33B2-435A-84AC-41F3FE0085A7@ciroap.org> On 19/08/2010, at 10:54 AM, Chad Lubelsky wrote: > I was chatting with Ginger and we both like the idea of having discussion summaries but recognize that that is a significant task for any one person to take on (although if there is a volunteer that would be great!). We then thought it might be more feasible to ask individual contributors to synthesize their own contributions. Drilling down to the essence of everyone's arguments might bring enhanced clarity to the discussion and also open the door to more diverse participation. Another option is to work on incorporating these thoughts into our responses to the MAG questionnaire on the future of the IGF (the six questions that we all answered a while back - no, I haven't forgotten it!). Over the next two weeks I'll be developing a poll based on the questionnaire answers and discussions, and then posting it for feedback as a draft. We can also add summaries of this thread, where relevant, into the poll answers and background material. The advantage of this is that we will have a permanent archive of it, whereas even the most valuable list discussions can be quite ephemeral. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur 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 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 19 03:56:54 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:56:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <0E271049-8351-4621-8E59-EC82E42D212A@ciroap.org> References: <3FD0818B24BA456A9FC808FE1D1751B3@userPC> <0E271049-8351-4621-8E59-EC82E42D212A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> At 05:05 19/08/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >I haven't been participating in this discussion, because I don't >want to stick too much of an oar in while I'm co-coordinator, but >I've been avidly reading and there have been many pearls of wisdom >exchanged. I'll just pipe up briefly here to add one short +1 to >this, and to make a couple of related remarks. Interesting debate. However, I do not want to harp on that too much, but democracy seems to be an outdated concept that is related to a period of prevalent dialogue calling for an elected chain of dialogue from bottom to top. With the demographic growth, and its implied direct horizontal relational consequences, we entered a polylogue period (people talking to everyone on behalf of everyone), and to facilitate this polylogue we created the Internet. This is new, and we are learning from experience as to what polycracy may mean and how one "governs", together with each other, a 7++ billion multicolor, multicultural, multilingual, multifaith, etc. States UN, in turn resulting from and dependent on a developing set of new technologies. The WSIS offered a panel of different, and probably prophetic, insights: - individual people centrism - dynamic coalitions: everyone can join/quit them to promote/defend a position - enhanced cooperations (to be worked on) to carry common tasks - where the current IESOCANN failure is, due to the still prevailing ICANN "Class IN" centrism make-believe. However, the enhanced cooperation mechanism is something that we will probably have to consider soon enough due to the principle of subsidiarity becoming the third founding principle (through the IDNA2008 illustration) of the Internet architecture (after the principle of adaptability as a result of the principle of permanent change - RFC 1958; and the principle of simplicity - RFC 3439). - multistakeholderism. However, in mainly quoting the governance regalian space, civil society, private sector, and international bodies, they overlooked three key missing stakeholder classes: money, users, and adminance. --- Adminance is what provides its technical soil to Governance (standards, operations, structures, training, maintenance, etc.). --- Users are the people who are the center of the whole thing (far away from CS, which deals with principles, while Users deal with reality). --- Money is still currently a decimal non-digital transaction memory tool that is devastated by the emergence of the digital ecosystem and is totally out of tune with it, and with the emerging polycracy (hence the current financial crisis and corruption wave [Russia: 50% of the GNP]). - the IGF decision making tool. Certainly the least understood proposition to date. While the main concept is still "coordinated cooperation" (by US, ICANN, UN...), the IGF is NOT a place for coordination (with voted motions influenced by lobbies and sponsors), but rather a place for "concertation" (French/EU meaning), i.e. where everyone can come to a better, mutually informed, personal decision. In such a system, stability can only proceed from what Buckminster Fuller called "tensegrity" (integrity based on a balance between tension and compression components).,This is probably a notion that we should explore better as a multilateral continuation of the East/West Cold War coexistence and further US globalization attempt. jfc >I agree that civil society must promote the adoption of a framework >for further democratising global governance (for which >"multistakeholderism" is just a convenient and slightly inaccurate >shorthand), beyond the Internet governance regime, in which it is >really just a test-bed. > >Agreeing with Wolfgang, and disagreeing slightly with Parminder, for >me the inclusion of the three stakeholder groups in >multi-stakeholder structures has never been about increasing the >power of the private sector, but on the contary, balancing it. The >private sector already has the ear of governments, and by promoting >multistakeholderism we ask nothing more than for the same privilege. > >In Internet governance, we already have a good basic starting point >for such a framework in the WSIS process criteria and the IGF's >(unfulfilled) mandate to assess the performance of Internet >governance institutions against these criteria. Beyond that, the >framework is being taken forward by efforts like the UNECE/CoE/APC >Code of Good Practice on information, participation and transparency >in Internet governance (already referred to in this thread, >http://www.intgovcode.org/). > >Other regimes are very far behind. I have just written a paper in >which I argue for the development of global principles for >governance of the global regime on intellectual property, in view of >the threat of ACTA, whose negotiators not only flout basic >principles of democratic global governance, but also feign ignorance >that they are doing so. One of our workshops (Parminder's) will >deal with this in detail too. > >My fear, though, is that whilst Internet governance is, as I've >said, just a test-bed for multistakeholderism, if it doesn't soon >prove its value then it will not only have been born there but will >die there as well, and end up with no more currency in global >governance discourse than communism or anarchism. > >In this respect I respectfully can't agree with Ginger (another >reason I'm piping up now!) about the need to constrain the IGF from >producing "results". The fears about "the pressure of negotiations >or the need for an agreed-upon end 'result'", whilst not unfounded, >should be systematically confronted and addressed rather than >fatalistically accepted. > >It is more important that multi-stakeholderism works (and for us, >not just for the incumbent powers) rather than that it doesn't rock >the boat. And by "works", we mean that we need to have an >appreciable impact on shaping actual public policy decisions at a >global level. At the moment, we quite simply don't (research >presented at last year's workshop on "Identifying the Impact" >demonstrated this, and the UNSG's recent remarks also acknowledge it). > >In fact there are many ways in which the power of governments and >other powerful actors to screw up the process can be defused. I've >written about these ad nauseum and I don't intend to do so again >here, but read again the summary I wrote for the IGP for a refresher >if you are interested (http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). > >With that out of the way, I'll re-lurk and leave you all to continue >these very productive and interesting discussions. -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Aug 19 05:00:45 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:00:45 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism References: <3FD0818B24BA456A9FC808FE1D1751B3@userPC> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F85@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Michael Thanks michael for you long explanation. if I understand you correctly your are in favour of a multistakeholder dialogue below the governmental level . In your concept the balancing of the various interests on the ground lead to a "government" at the top of a hierarchie. And it is the duty of a "good government" to take all stakeholders legitime interests into consideration when they develop policies and take decisions, domestically as well as in internaitonal bodies. If people do not like the government they elect another government. This is okay and this we practice in good democracies, in particular in Denmark, since decades. What works in a "hierarchy" probably does not work in a "network". And again the chain of representation gets longer and longer in a complicated world where the chances that the input from the ground ends with the correct output at the negotiaton table is questionable. Again, a more practical example with regard t the forthcoming negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA: Do you share the view that it would be good if the Internet Community lets say from Chile would have a chance to channel its views not only to the career diplomat, sitting on behalf of the Chilean Foreign Office in the 2nd Committee but would have also a more direct channel via Chilenean or Latin American CS structures (or an ALS/LACRALO) which could be probably much more specific in explaining the details. World gets more complex. General solutions will not work if they do not offer space for very differentiated "issue tailored solutions". To get this right, you need more expertise, knowledge and representation on the table. Certainly this will lead to a redistribution of power and this provokes the power struggle we see today. Who loves to share power? But power is shifting with the complexity of issues. When parliaments where invented in the middle ages, the kings were not amused that somebody wnated to have a say in decision making. From a kings perspective the interference of a parliament in his decisions was seen as unneeded because he had his advisers and owned all the wisdom. I like Jefseys concept of polycracy. As we know from Mr. Hegel and Mr.Marx, simple things are becoming more complex if issues move to a higher level. And the move from the industrial society (with its representative democracy) to the information society (with a still undefined governance model) is such a move to a higher more complex level. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mi 18.08.2010 20:23 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism Wolfgang, (I think I asked you first... but anyway...;-) This is a bizarre theory of government you are suggesting. Government, at least democratic governments are not (at least in principle) "stakeholders"... They don't or at least shouldn't have an independent "stake" in the outcomes of governance, rather they are the crucible through which the democratic citizenry expresses their voice as to desireable outcomes in public policy/decision making. The citizens give individual elected governments the right to manage the public interest on their behalf using government public services as their agents through regular and democratically conducted elections. The citizens have the right to remove the mandate from those elected governments as they choose if they don't think that they are executing or managing the public interest appropriately as they understand this (civics 101). Elected governments have an ambition to stay in power and thus act so as to develop and implement public policies of interest to the various active and effective stakeholders (business, civil society etc.) in such a way that these "stakeholders" in turn will provide the necessary support (financial, human resource support in elections) to allow governments to run successful campaigns and remain in power. Thus they consult with, accept representations from, are influenced by these various "stakeholders" (self-interested parties) but this process does not include transferring decision making responsibiliity to any of those parties. (Under many circumstances this would in fact be illegal and seen as corrupt practice.) The above sometimes gets distorted (sometimes wildly distorted) because of the cost and complexity of running modern elections/governments but at least that's the theory and in reasonably well-ordered democracies things operate more or less on that principle. The fact that many are disillusioned with the practices of certain specific (democratic) governments doesn't to my mind negate the principles of democractic practice which seem to me to be provide the greatest good for the greatest number overall. It does however, suggest that in those countries where there is concern, those with an interest in making the operations better should develop ways of enhancing the democratic process. Digital tools now provide a variety of new ways for achieving enhanced ("deepened"?) democracy as for example through facilitating rapid communication and widespread access to information. This in turn enhances the possibility of citizens (and thus electors) having for example greater access to information, means of ensuring accountability on the part of their elected representatives and transparency of the various processes of governmental operations and administration. I'm sure this sounds incredibly simple minded to most of you folks but it is probably worth repeating here simply as an antidote to what appear to be some serious misunderstandings of how (democratic) governments in principle (and to a very considerable degree in many many instances) in fact do/should are legally obliged to operate. As for ways forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way forward as being the establishment of some frameworks for global governance (perhaps in specific identified areas) with clear rules of operation/legitimacy/participation and means for enforcement. Those rules may be (perhaps need to be) supranational but it can't I think for reasons that should be obvious, be left to decisions by those who (have the means and interest) to show up and participate. The problem with with leaving it to those who show up (and in the absence of rules) is that those with the resources and the specific "stake" i.e. return from the outcome will find whatever means necessary to realize their ends and ultimately dominate the process. And those with less of a focused "stake" (viz. the public) will inevitably lose out. (Microsoft's apparently successful suborning of various global/national standards setting processes to serve their specific product promotion interests is an obvious example.) Again in response to your question, the rules going forward need to be based on a clear recognition that the over-arching value is support for the (global) public interest and ensuring that the development of those rules are based on the broadest possible and democratic inclusion into the definition of what the public interest is in specific areas. Best to all, Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:06 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear Michael you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between (traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy (including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making) is deepening democracy or not? What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms") 1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not) 2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know when governments follow strong lobbying by industry. 3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table. If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer? Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the issue and are immune against corruption. Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative principles have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in drafting such principles). As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder (or try to substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation where different perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions (which means balance of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and fair to all parties. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism Wolfgang, This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying, providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and 6. Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear David thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach. Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 06:41:10 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 13:41:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> Message-ID: I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google wrote: > Hello: > > I would like to nominate Marilia Maciel and Ginger Paque to treat with the > issues raised below. > > Thanks, > > Tracy > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> I was about to reply to Natasha when Hartmut's post came in. I would say: >> >> Thanks, Natasha, for this important news. >> >> Everyone: May we please have nominations for consideration for Opening and >> Closing session CS speakers? >> >> I am sure my biases will show here, but I think we should prefer two women >> and two men, or three women, one man, in order to balance the overall >> speaker selection (taking into account two nominations for each slot). >> >> Geographically, I think we particularly need someone from Latin >> America/Caribbean as an underrepresented region. >> >> Other general guidelines and suggestions welcome. >> >> I personally do not mind self-nominations, but people should take >> Hartmut's comment into consideration, as he is probably not the only one who >> feels that way. If you would like to be considered, perhaps you should >> discuss it with a colleague and ask them to nominate you if they think it is >> appropriate. To maintain partiality, I will not nominate anyone. >> >> Please post your nominations and suggestions as soon as possible. I will >> check with Markus to define the final date for our submission. >> >> Thanks, any other comment, Jeremy? >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8/18/2010 3:07 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >> >> Hi Natasha, >> >> My message was not related to your name ...! >> >> all the best >> >> Hartmut >> >> =================================== >> On 18/8/2010 16:25, Natasha Primo wrote: >> >> Hi, >> Thanks Hartmut. Just so we're clear: I'm not nominating myself :) >> Natasha >> >> On 18 Aug 2010, at 9:14 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> I never like self nomination. >> >> rgds >> >> Hartmut >> >> =================================== >> On 18/8/2010 15:55, Natasha Primo wrote: >> >> Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), >> >> Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and closing sessions, >> and he confirmed that we need to propose names to fill the CS stakeholder >> slot on the two panels in question. The IGF secretariat would like more than >> one name (per panel) to consider, so it can balance the diversity criteria >> among/of the panelists. >> >> I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or Ginger, I'm >> handing this over to you to coordinate/collate then. I hope thats in order. >> >> Regards, >> Natasha >> >> >> >> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ >> Natasha Primo >> Association for Progressive Communications >> Johannesburg, South Africa >> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ >> Natasha Primo >> National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative >> Association for Progressive Communications >> Johannesburg, South Africa >> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Thu Aug 19 07:02:59 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:02:59 +0500 Subject: [governance] Take Back the Tech! to End Violence Against Women - Small grants: Call for applications Message-ID: <019101cb3f8e$1797ee90$46c7cbb0$@net> Bytes for All and P at SHA seeking proposals for projects that address the intersection between Violence Against Women (VAW) and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). A project supported by the MDG3 Fund and implemented by the Association for Progressive Communications Women's Networking and Support Programme (APC-WNSP). As part of our work in Pakistan the APC WNSP, through P at SHA and Bytes for All, are calling for proposals for projects that seek to address the intersection between violence against women and girls, and/or to stop violence against women and girls through the strategic use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). What kind of proposals will be considered for the small grant? - Development of tools and platforms that will facilitate women and girls' access, use and development of ICTs, with a particular focus on secure online communications - Implementation of strategies that strengthen women's participation in ICT policy processes - Projects that promote the strategic use of ICT tools in projects and programmes that address violence against women - Projects that improve sexual assault survivors access to ICTs to assist in access to information and resources - Projects that use ICTs to support the collection of data and statistics - Research projects that contribute to knowledge about the interconnections of violence against women and ICTs - Building the ICT capacities of providers of services to sexual violence survivors - Empowerment and self-healing methodologies through strategic use of ICTs for women and adolescent girl survivors of violence - Capacity-building workshops that aim to build the skills of women and girls in the strategic use of ICTs to end violence against women and girls - Advocacy campaigns to lobby for policy changes that increase access to information and communication resources and expand communication rights for women and girls - Awareness raising campaigns to build common knowledge, establish and amplify context-specific discourses on the issue of violence against women and girls and ICTs Here are some examples of proposals that would be considered: - Training for volunteers and staff at counseling and women's support centres in how to use a secure online database to collect data about survivors of violence who seek counseling and support - Mapping projects related to the collection of statistics about the incidences of violence against women, where they occur, and what forms of support are available - Creating online support networks for example for survivors of violence, etc Please note that proposals that aim to only buy equipment and hardware cannot be supported. A reasonable portion of the budget can be set aside for equipment but we need to see how people will benefit. Who is eligible to apply for a small grant? Proposals will be accepted from any organisation, network, group or collective operating from a not-for-profit framework. Individual developers or techies with proposals for tools and platforms must have a relationship with an organisation / network with whom they will work, or who will benefit from and the proposal should demonstrate this. What are the criteria for selection? - Innovativeness - Clearly outlines and addresses useful preventing violence against women initiatives - ICT-enabled - Projects that directly engage with the concerns of marginalised women and girls and contribute to securing their safety and strengthening their agency - Activity contributes to the priority issues identified during the National Strategy Workshop: - Awareness regarding privacy & security issues online & how to handle them - Monitoring & tracking of VAW - Training of women activists - Activity/project could be replicated - Proposal clearly states objectives, includes a methodology/implementation strategy, identifies outputs, partners/stakeholders and includes a time line and budget - Realistic within budgetary and time constraints - Use of Free and Open Source (FOSS) applications is greatly encouraged - Candidates must be available for capacity building workshop to be held during the implementation phase of the project How to apply for a small grant? Your proposal should be a maximum of 6 pages including budget and include the following sections: - Description of the problem or issue the proposal will respond to - Description of the activity including objectives - Duration of the activity - Who are the beneficiaries? - How does the activity relate to the project's overall objectives in Pakistan - Capacity to implement - Budget Application process: Email to: grants at takebackthetech.pk Apply by: September 10 Results out by: September 25 Reporting requirements Successful grantees will be required to submit narrative and financial report to illustrate how funds have been spent To download the flyer, click here: http://pakistanictpolicy.bytesforall.net/ or http://jehanara.wordpress.com/ Background The Association for Progressive Communications (APC) is an international network of civil society organisations (CSOs) dedicated to empowering and supporting people working for peace, human rights, development and protection of the environment through the strategic use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). APC's work in women's rights and gender equality is done through its Women's Networking Support Programme (WNSP), a global network of women that has supported women's networking for social change and empowerment since 1993. APC WNSP is an international facilitator of civil society's engagement with ICT and its related concerns in policies and practices. Contributions have been made at global, regional and national levels, and particularly in developing countries through raising awareness, technical training for women, developing tools and information resources, building capacity in gender evaluation and influencing policies to ensure that ICT benefit women in transformative and empowering ways. We see the intersection of violence against women and girls and ICTs as a critical area for engagement in which only a handful of women's rights activists are active. This means that as a political space for engagement, control of the internet and telecommunications-and related issues of exploitation, filtering and surveillance-remain the domain of men. Women and girls are facing increasing challenges to their right to safety and privacy when entering online spaces and when using mobile technology. To APC, their empowerment through skills, knowledge and community-building is the most realistic and sustainable solution. We also recognise that women's rights organisations working to address violence against women and girls have not been able to use ICT in a more strategic manner. The APC WNSP received a grant through the MDG3 Fund: Investing in Equality to implement the 'Strengthening Women's Strategic Use of Information and Communications Technologies to Combat Violence against Women and Girls' project - simply titled: Take Back the Tech! to End Violence Against Women. "Take Back the Tech! to End violence against women and girls" exposes the connections between violence against women and ICTs in practice and policy 12 countries. It has three main objectives: - to build and strengthen the capacity of women, girls and women's rights organisations to use, reclaim and shape ICTs to stop violence against women and girls - to create platforms and opportunities for women and girls to critically engage with ICTs to combat violence, and as survivors of violence, to contribute towards self and collective healing - to build feminist analysis, particularly around the intersections of violence against women and ICT into global, regional and national ICT policy processes __._,_.___ -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Thu Aug 19 07:19:03 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:19:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> Message-ID: Ginger, And what about Africa ??? I nominate Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla from Senegal ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ _____ De : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Envoyé : mercredi 18 août 2010 21:44 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Hartmut Richard Glaser Cc : Natasha Primo; Jeremy Malcolm Objet : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing I was about to reply to Natasha when Hartmut's post came in. I would say: Thanks, Natasha, for this important news. Everyone: May we please have nominations for consideration for Opening and Closing session CS speakers? I am sure my biases will show here, but I think we should prefer two women and two men, or three women, one man, in order to balance the overall speaker selection (taking into account two nominations for each slot). Geographically, I think we particularly need someone from Latin America/Caribbean as an underrepresented region. Other general guidelines and suggestions welcome. I personally do not mind self-nominations, but people should take Hartmut's comment into consideration, as he is probably not the only one who feels that way. If you would like to be considered, perhaps you should discuss it with a colleague and ask them to nominate you if they think it is appropriate. To maintain partiality, I will not nominate anyone. Please post your nominations and suggestions as soon as possible. I will check with Markus to define the final date for our submission. Thanks, any other comment, Jeremy? Best, Ginger On 8/18/2010 3:07 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: Hi Natasha, My message was not related to your name ...! all the best Hartmut =================================== On 18/8/2010 16:25, Natasha Primo wrote: Hi, Thanks Hartmut. Just so we're clear: I'm not nominating myself :) Natasha On 18 Aug 2010, at 9:14 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: Dear All, I never like self nomination. rgds Hartmut =================================== On 18/8/2010 15:55, Natasha Primo wrote: Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and closing sessions, and he confirmed that we need to propose names to fill the CS stakeholder slot on the two panels in question. The IGF secretariat would like more than one name (per panel) to consider, so it can balance the diversity criteria among/of the panelists. I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or Ginger, I'm handing this over to you to coordinate/collate then. I hope thats in order. Regards, Natasha //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\ //\/ Natasha Primo Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\ //\/ Natasha Primo National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative Association for Progressive Communications Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/Fax: +27118372122 Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 07:27:11 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:57:11 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C6D150F.30208@paque.net> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From graciela at nupef.org.br Thu Aug 19 10:12:10 2010 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:12:10 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C6D3BBA.30505@nupef.org.br> Hello, speaking form LAC, I suggest Valeria Betancourt as a speaker. She's doing a remarkable work in the region, organizing the IGF LAC preparatory meeting and mobilizing actors from different sectors around the issue of Internet Governance. best, Graciela Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google escreveu: > Hello: > > I would like to nominate Marilia Maciel and Ginger Paque to treat with > the issues raised below. > > Thanks, > > Tracy > > > > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: > > I was about to reply to Natasha when Hartmut's post came in. I > would say: > > Thanks, Natasha, for this important news. > > Everyone: May we please have nominations for consideration for > Opening and Closing session CS speakers? > > I am sure my biases will show here, but I think we should prefer > two women and two men, or three women, one man, in order to > balance the overall speaker selection (taking into account two > nominations for each slot). > > Geographically, I think we particularly need someone from Latin > America/Caribbean as an underrepresented region. > > Other general guidelines and suggestions welcome. > > I personally do not mind self-nominations, but people should take > Hartmut's comment into consideration, as he is probably not the > only one who feels that way. If you would like to be considered, > perhaps you should discuss it with a colleague and ask them to > nominate you if they think it is appropriate. To maintain > partiality, I will not nominate anyone. > > Please post your nominations and suggestions as soon as possible. > I will check with Markus to define the final date for our submission. > > Thanks, any other comment, Jeremy? > Best, Ginger > > > > > > On 8/18/2010 3:07 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >> >> Hi Natasha, >> >> My message was not related to your name ...! >> >> all the best >> >> Hartmut >> >> =================================== >> On 18/8/2010 16:25, Natasha Primo wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks Hartmut. Just so we're clear: I'm not nominating myself :) >>> >>> Natasha >>> >>> >>> On 18 Aug 2010, at 9:14 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Dear All, >>>> >>>> I never like self nomination. >>>> >>>> rgds >>>> >>>> Hartmut >>>> >>>> =================================== >>>> On 18/8/2010 15:55, Natasha Primo wrote: >>>>> Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), >>>>> >>>>> Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and >>>>> closing sessions, and he confirmed that we need to propose >>>>> names to fill the CS stakeholder slot on the two panels in >>>>> question. The IGF secretariat would like more than one name >>>>> (per panel) to consider, so it can balance the diversity >>>>> criteria among/of the panelists. >>>>> >>>>> I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or >>>>> Ginger, I'm handing this over to you to coordinate/collate >>>>> then. I hope thats in order. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Natasha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ >>>>> >>>>> Natasha Primo >>>>> Association for Progressive Communications >>>>> Johannesburg, South Africa >>>>> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >>>>> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ >>> Natasha Primo >>> National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative >>> Association for Progressive Communications >>> Johannesburg, South Africa >>> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >>> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 07:41:06 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:11:06 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 10:21:50 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 09:51:50 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6D3BBA.30505@nupef.org.br> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D3BBA.30505@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <4C6D3DFE.8090209@paque.net> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 19 09:03:36 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 22:03:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and In-Reply-To: <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the nomination, but I can't accept, I will be working for the secretariat during the IGF meeting. Best, Adam >Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point noted, >and nomination of Adam Peake noted. > >Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a refresher? > >Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM >Bazlur Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata Seye >Sylla, Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make sure they >are willing to speak, expect to be at the meeting, and post their >one-paragraph bios? Additional nominations should do the same. > >Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing those >named above. > >Best, Ginger > >On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: > >>Dear Ginger Paque, >>Who will from Asia ? >>I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. >>With best regards, >> >> >>Bazlu >>_______________________ >>AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR >>Chief Executive Officer >>Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) >>[NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] >>& >>Head, Community Radio Academy >> >>House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 >>Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh >> >>Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 >>Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 >>E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net >>www.bnnrc.net >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: Ginger Paque >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; >>McTim >>Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM >>Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing >> >>Noted, McTim, thank you! >> >>Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those >>who are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger >> >>On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>>I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. >>> >>> >>> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: >>http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 08:52:18 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:22:18 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> Message-ID: <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Thu Aug 19 07:58:23 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:58:23 +0600 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> Dear Ginger Paque, Who will from Asia ? I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. With best regards, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Noted, McTim, thank you! Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Aug 19 07:44:15 2010 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:44:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and In-Reply-To: <4C6D150F.30208@paque.net> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D150F.30208@paque.net> Message-ID: And it is probably a good idea to make sure the person plans to attend before making a nomination. List has been amazingly busy recently, and some interesting comments. Adam At 6:57 AM -0430 8/19/10, Ginger Paque wrote: >Hello, > >Definitely Africa!!! > >I am very sorry for my poor postulation, I did not mean LAC to the >exclusion of Africa. But sitting in Venezuela, I am acutely aware of >the poor representation of LAC in the international policy >processes. We need to mobilize and engage, and this is one way to >support this engagement. You may have noticed the sparse numbers of >LAC people at the IGF and other meetings. > >Nor do I mean to exclude men :) Really, guys! Just looking for balance. > >Your nomination is noted. Could you please post one paragraph about >your nominee to help those who do not know her? Preferably, but not >exclusively (I think), we should propose members of the IGC. > >Thank you! 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From presidencia at internauta.org.ar Thu Aug 19 10:32:23 2010 From: presidencia at internauta.org.ar (Presidencia Internauta) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:32:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D3BBA.30505@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <383F93E48EB74B3D9A04517557550DBF@Sergio> spanish & english Coincido con lo expresado por Graciela. Creo que Valeria Betancourt puede expresar una buena posición de LAC sergio salinas porto Internauta argentina http://internauta.org.ar -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with the views expressed by Graciela. I think Valeria Betancourt can express a good position LAC sergio salinas porto Internauta argentina http://internauta.org.ar ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graciela Selaimen" To: Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 11:12 AM Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing > Hello, > > speaking form LAC, I suggest Valeria Betancourt as a speaker. She's > doing a remarkable work in the region, organizing the IGF LAC > preparatory meeting and mobilizing actors from different sectors around > the issue of Internet Governance. > > best, > Graciela > > Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google escreveu: >> Hello: >> >> I would like to nominate Marilia Maciel and Ginger Paque to treat with >> the issues raised below. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Tracy >> >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ginger Paque > > wrote: >> >> I was about to reply to Natasha when Hartmut's post came in. I >> would say: >> >> Thanks, Natasha, for this important news. >> >> Everyone: May we please have nominations for consideration for >> Opening and Closing session CS speakers? >> >> I am sure my biases will show here, but I think we should prefer >> two women and two men, or three women, one man, in order to >> balance the overall speaker selection (taking into account two >> nominations for each slot). >> >> Geographically, I think we particularly need someone from Latin >> America/Caribbean as an underrepresented region. >> >> Other general guidelines and suggestions welcome. >> >> I personally do not mind self-nominations, but people should take >> Hartmut's comment into consideration, as he is probably not the >> only one who feels that way. If you would like to be considered, >> perhaps you should discuss it with a colleague and ask them to >> nominate you if they think it is appropriate. To maintain >> partiality, I will not nominate anyone. >> >> Please post your nominations and suggestions as soon as possible. >> I will check with Markus to define the final date for our submission. >> >> Thanks, any other comment, Jeremy? >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> On 8/18/2010 3:07 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >>> >>> Hi Natasha, >>> >>> My message was not related to your name ...! >>> >>> all the best >>> >>> Hartmut >>> >>> =================================== >>> On 18/8/2010 16:25, Natasha Primo wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks Hartmut. Just so we're clear: I'm not nominating myself :) >>>> >>>> Natasha >>>> >>>> >>>> On 18 Aug 2010, at 9:14 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Dear All, >>>>> >>>>> I never like self nomination. >>>>> >>>>> rgds >>>>> >>>>> Hartmut >>>>> >>>>> =================================== >>>>> On 18/8/2010 15:55, Natasha Primo wrote: >>>>>> Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), >>>>>> >>>>>> Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and >>>>>> closing sessions, and he confirmed that we need to propose >>>>>> names to fill the CS stakeholder slot on the two panels in >>>>>> question. The IGF secretariat would like more than one name >>>>>> (per panel) to consider, so it can balance the diversity >>>>>> criteria among/of the panelists. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or >>>>>> Ginger, I'm handing this over to you to coordinate/collate >>>>>> then. I hope thats in order. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Natasha >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ >>>>>> >>>>>> Natasha Primo >>>>>> Association for Progressive Communications >>>>>> Johannesburg, South Africa >>>>>> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >>>>>> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ >>>> Natasha Primo >>>> National ICT Policy Advocacy Initiative >>>> Association for Progressive Communications >>>> Johannesburg, South Africa >>>> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >>>> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at nic.br Thu Aug 19 10:54:21 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:54:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C6D459D.5080301@nic.br> *Dear McTim and Dear Ginger, Thanks for the nomination, but I can't accept. best regards Hartmut* ========================= On 19/08/10 08:41, Ginger Paque wrote: > Noted, McTim, thank you! > > Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who > are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger > > On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: >> I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. >> >> -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 11:28:13 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:28:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F85@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Wolfgang, -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:01 AM To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Michael Thanks michael for you long explanation. if I understand you correctly your are in favour of a multistakeholder dialogue below the governmental level . In your concept the balancing of the various interests on the ground lead to a "government" at the top of a hierarchie. And it is the duty of a "good government" to take all stakeholders legitime interests into consideration when they develop policies and take decisions, domestically as well as in internaitonal bodies. If people do not like the government they elect another government. This is okay and this we practice in good democracies, in particular in Denmark, since decades. YES What works in a "hierarchy" probably does not work in a "network". And again the chain of representation gets longer and longer in a complicated world where the chances that the input from the ground ends with the correct output at the negotiaton table is questionable. I AGREE WITH THE FINAL PART OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE... THE ISSUE OF A SHIFT FROM A "HIERARCHY" TO A "NETWORK" IS NOT VERY CLEAR TO ME (SCOPE, APPLICATION, EVIDENCE) NOR IS WHAT CONCLUSIONS YOU WOULD DRAW FROM THIS "SHIFT" AND WHAT BASIS YOU HAVE FOR DRAWING THESE CONCLUSIONS. Again, a more practical example with regard t the forthcoming negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA: Do you share the view that it would be good if the Internet Community lets say from Chile would have a chance to channel its views not only to the career diplomat, sitting on behalf of the Chilean Foreign Office in the 2nd Committee but would have also a more direct channel via Chilenean or Latin American CS structures (or an ALS/LACRALO) which could be probably much more specific in explaining the details). THIS REQUIRES MORE EXPLANATION--WHAT ARE THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED (TECHNICAL, NORMATIVE, DISTRIBUTIVE AND SO ON)? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "MORE DIRECT CHANNEL" HERE, AND WHAT IS BEING CHANNELED TO WHOM AND BY WHOM FOR WHAT PURPOSE, AT WHOSE INITIATIVE, IN WHAT DECISION MAKING CONTEXT AND SO ON. CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INSIGHT, INDICATIONS OF POPULAR SUPPORT/DISAGREEMENT AND SO ON WOULD BE VALUABLE TO THE OVERALL DISCUSSION AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS (BUT REMEMBERING THAT THESE CHANNELS ARE AS OPEN TO NON-CS FORCES AND INFLUENCES AS TO CS ONES AND WHERE THE ISSUE AT HAND MATTERS (FOR EXAMPLE FINANCIALLY), THOSE NON-CS FORCES ARE LIKELY TO BE BETTER ABLE TO MAKE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS THAN IS CS. World gets more complex. General solutions will not work if they do not offer space for very differentiated "issue tailored solutions". To get this right, you need more expertise, knowledge and representation on the table. YES, THE WORLD IS GETTING MORE COMPLEX... WHETHER WE WANT "DIFFERENTIATED SOLUTIONS" IS ANOTHER MATTER--THE OBVIOUS ONE FOR ME IS SAY NET NEUTRALITY. DO WE REALLY WANT ONE SOLUTION FOR THOSE ABLE TO PAY AND ANOTHER FOR THOSE NOT ABLE TO PAY. THE PRIMARY DIFFERENTIATOR IN MOST SOCIETIES IS WEALTH AND DO WE REALLY WANT TO DEVELOP GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF ALLOWING ONE SOLUTION FOR THE RICH AND ANOTHER FOR THE POOR? MAYBE TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS US TO DO THAT IN NEW WAYS AND IN NEW AREAS BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TRADITIONAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS BEAUTIFUL TWIN THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IS WORTH PRESERVING EVEN IF NEW WAYS OF UNDERMINING IT ARE BEING DEVELOPED AS WE SPEAK. Certainly this will lead to a redistribution of power and this provokes the power struggle we see today. Who loves to share power? But power is shifting with the complexity of issues. When parliaments where invented in the middle ages, the kings were not amused that somebody wnated to have a say in decision making. From a kings perspective the interference of a parliament in his decisions was seen as unneeded because he had his advisers and owned all the wisdom. YES, THERE IS THE NUB. DO WE AS CS PROMOTE A SHIFT IN POWER AWAY FROM "THE PEOPLE" TO CORPORATIONS, TECHNOCRATS (EXPERTS), THE WEALTHY, I.E. THOSE WITH THE RESOURCES AND SKILLS CAPABLE OF EXERTING INFLUENCING (GAMING THE SYSTEM) IN OUR INTERNET ENABLED WORLD. I like Jefseys concept of polycracy. As we know from Mr. Hegel and Mr.Marx, simple things are becoming more complex if issues move to a higher level. And the move from the industrial society (with its representative democracy) to the information society (with a still undefined governance model) is such a move to a higher more complex level. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A "polycracy" WOULD LOOK LIKE AND FROM WHAT I GATHER NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, WITH ANY CLARITY; SO BEFORE WE MAKE OUR COLLECTIVE LEAP OF FAITH INTO THIS MISTY NEW WORLD I THINK IT MIGHT BE RATHER MORE USEFUL TO GIVE OUR ATTENTION TO FIGURING OUT HOW THE TECHNO-MAGICAL PROPERTIES AND AFFORDANCES OF THE DIGITAL WORLD--COMMUNICATIONS EVERYWHERE, UBIGUITOUS INFORMATION ACCESS AND CONTROL, ALMOST INFINITE UNIVERSAL MEMORY AND SO ON CAN HELP US TO DEEPEN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM THAT WHATEVER ITS FLAWS HAS DONE RIGHT BY MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER AND IS STILL THE UNQUESTIONED ASPIRATION OF THE VAST NUMBERS OF THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO ITS OPPORTUNTIIES AS WELL AS THOSE EVERYWHERE WITHOUT OTHER SOURCES OF POWER OR OPPORTUNITY. BEST, MIKE Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mi 18.08.2010 20:23 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism Wolfgang, (I think I asked you first... but anyway...;-) This is a bizarre theory of government you are suggesting. Government, at least democratic governments are not (at least in principle) "stakeholders"... They don't or at least shouldn't have an independent "stake" in the outcomes of governance, rather they are the crucible through which the democratic citizenry expresses their voice as to desireable outcomes in public policy/decision making. The citizens give individual elected governments the right to manage the public interest on their behalf using government public services as their agents through regular and democratically conducted elections. The citizens have the right to remove the mandate from those elected governments as they choose if they don't think that they are executing or managing the public interest appropriately as they understand this (civics 101). Elected governments have an ambition to stay in power and thus act so as to develop and implement public policies of interest to the various active and effective stakeholders (business, civil society etc.) in such a way that these "stakeholders" in turn will provide the necessary support (financial, human resource support in elections) to allow governments to run successful campaigns and remain in power. Thus they consult with, accept representations from, are influenced by these various "stakeholders" (self-interested parties) but this process does not include transferring decision making responsibiliity to any of those parties. (Under many circumstances this would in fact be illegal and seen as corrupt practice.) The above sometimes gets distorted (sometimes wildly distorted) because of the cost and complexity of running modern elections/governments but at least that's the theory and in reasonably well-ordered democracies things operate more or less on that principle. The fact that many are disillusioned with the practices of certain specific (democratic) governments doesn't to my mind negate the principles of democractic practice which seem to me to be provide the greatest good for the greatest number overall. It does however, suggest that in those countries where there is concern, those with an interest in making the operations better should develop ways of enhancing the democratic process. Digital tools now provide a variety of new ways for achieving enhanced ("deepened"?) democracy as for example through facilitating rapid communication and widespread access to information. This in turn enhances the possibility of citizens (and thus electors) having for example greater access to information, means of ensuring accountability on the part of their elected representatives and transparency of the various processes of governmental operations and administration. I'm sure this sounds incredibly simple minded to most of you folks but it is probably worth repeating here simply as an antidote to what appear to be some serious misunderstandings of how (democratic) governments in principle (and to a very considerable degree in many many instances) in fact do/should are legally obliged to operate. As for ways forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way forward as being the establishment of some frameworks for global governance (perhaps in specific identified areas) with clear rules of operation/legitimacy/participation and means for enforcement. Those rules may be (perhaps need to be) supranational but it can't I think for reasons that should be obvious, be left to decisions by those who (have the means and interest) to show up and participate. The problem with with leaving it to those who show up (and in the absence of rules) is that those with the resources and the specific "stake" i.e. return from the outcome will find whatever means necessary to realize their ends and ultimately dominate the process. And those with less of a focused "stake" (viz. the public) will inevitably lose out. (Microsoft's apparently successful suborning of various global/national standards setting processes to serve their specific product promotion interests is an obvious example.) Again in response to your question, the rules going forward need to be based on a clear recognition that the over-arching value is support for the (global) public interest and ensuring that the development of those rules are based on the broadest possible and democratic inclusion into the definition of what the public interest is in specific areas. Best to all, Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:06 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear Michael you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between (traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy (including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making) is deepening democracy or not? What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms") 1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not) 2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know when governments follow strong lobbying by industry. 3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table. If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer? Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the issue and are immune against corruption. Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative principles have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in drafting such principles). As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder (or try to substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation where different perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions (which means balance of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and fair to all parties. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism Wolfgang, This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying, providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and 6. Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear David thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach. Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 11:28:13 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 08:28:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> Jefsey, While your note below seems to be making some useful points it demonstrates to my mind precisely one of the major hesitations I have concerning shifting away from existing approaches to democracy/the governance of governance into any of the alternatives currently being discussed in forums such as this one, especially where the main argument is that somehow the technology is forcing these changes upon us. We are having a discussion on quite fundamental issues of very broad significance and relevance and in the midst of this we are bombarded with technical jargon, references to highly specialized and even arcane areas of expertise and documentation, and undefined acronyms and neologisms and we are expected that somehow we are to take this seriously as arguments of more general import. (Or what would be even worse, nod sagely as though we understood and passed these along as useful contributions.) If you can translate what you have below into any of the official languages of the UN it would I think be a useful place to begin. Tks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: jefsey [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:57 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism At 05:05 19/08/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: I haven't been participating in this discussion, because I don't want to stick too much of an oar in while I'm co-coordinator, but I've been avidly reading and there have been many pearls of wisdom exchanged. I'll just pipe up briefly here to add one short +1 to this, and to make a couple of related remarks. Interesting debate. However, I do not want to harp on that too much, but democracy seems to be an outdated concept that is related to a period of prevalent dialogue calling for an elected chain of dialogue from bottom to top. With the demographic growth, and its implied direct horizontal relational consequences, we entered a polylogue period (people talking to everyone on behalf of everyone), and to facilitate this polylogue we created the Internet. This is new, and we are learning from experience as to what polycracy may mean and how one "governs", together with each other, a 7++ billion multicolor, multicultural, multilingual, multifaith, etc. States UN, in turn resulting from and dependent on a developing set of new technologies. The WSIS offered a panel of different, and probably prophetic, insights: - individual people centrism - dynamic coalitions: everyone can join/quit them to promote/defend a position - enhanced cooperations (to be worked on) to carry common tasks - where the current IESOCANN failure is, due to the still prevailing ICANN "Class IN" centrism make-believe. However, the enhanced cooperation mechanism is something that we will probably have to consider soon enough due to the principle of subsidiarity becoming the third founding principle (through the IDNA2008 illustration) of the Internet architecture (after the principle of adaptability as a result of the principle of permanent change - RFC 1958; and the principle of simplicity - RFC 3439). - multistakeholderism. However, in mainly quoting the governance regalian space, civil society, private sector, and international bodies, they overlooked three key missing stakeholder classes: money, users, and adminance. --- Adminance is what provides its technical soil to Governance (standards, operations, structures, training, maintenance, etc.). --- Users are the people who are the center of the whole thing (far away from CS, which deals with principles, while Users deal with reality). --- Money is still currently a decimal non-digital transaction memory tool that is devastated by the emergence of the digital ecosystem and is totally out of tune with it, and with the emerging polycracy (hence the current financial crisis and corruption wave [Russia: 50% of the GNP]). - the IGF decision making tool. Certainly the least understood proposition to date. While the main concept is still "coordinated cooperation" (by US, ICANN, UN...), the IGF is NOT a place for coordination (with voted motions influenced by lobbies and sponsors), but rather a place for "concertation" (French/EU meaning), i.e. where everyone can come to a better, mutually informed, personal decision. In such a system, stability can only proceed from what Buckminster Fuller called "tensegrity" (integrity based on a balance between tension and compression components).,This is probably a notion that we should explore better as a multilateral continuation of the East/West Cold War coexistence and further US globalization attempt. jfc I agree that civil society must promote the adoption of a framework for further democratising global governance (for which "multistakeholderism" is just a convenient and slightly inaccurate shorthand), beyond the Internet governance regime, in which it is really just a test-bed. Agreeing with Wolfgang, and disagreeing slightly with Parminder, for me the inclusion of the three stakeholder groups in multi-stakeholder structures has never been about increasing the power of the private sector, but on the contary, balancing it. The private sector already has the ear of governments, and by promoting multistakeholderism we ask nothing more than for the same privilege. In Internet governance, we already have a good basic starting point for such a framework in the WSIS process criteria and the IGF's (unfulfilled) mandate to assess the performance of Internet governance institutions against these criteria. Beyond that, the framework is being taken forward by efforts like the UNECE/CoE/APC Code of Good Practice on information, participation and transparency in Internet governance (already referred to in this thread, http://www.intgovcode.org/). Other regimes are very far behind. I have just written a paper in which I argue for the development of global principles for governance of the global regime on intellectual property, in view of the threat of ACTA, whose negotiators not only flout basic principles of democratic global governance, but also feign ignorance that they are doing so. One of our workshops (Parminder's) will deal with this in detail too. My fear, though, is that whilst Internet governance is, as I've said, just a test-bed for multistakeholderism, if it doesn't soon prove its value then it will not only have been born there but will die there as well, and end up with no more currency in global governance discourse than communism or anarchism. In this respect I respectfully can't agree with Ginger (another reason I'm piping up now!) about the need to constrain the IGF from producing "results". The fears about "the pressure of negotiations or the need for an agreed-upon end 'result'", whilst not unfounded, should be systematically confronted and addressed rather than fatalistically accepted. It is more important that multi-stakeholderism works (and for us, not just for the incumbent powers) rather than that it doesn't rock the boat. And by "works", we mean that we need to have an appreciable impact on shaping actual public policy decisions at a global level. At the moment, we quite simply don't (research presented at last year's workshop on "Identifying the Impact" demonstrated this, and the UNSG's recent remarks also acknowledge it). In fact there are many ways in which the power of governments and other powerful actors to screw up the process can be defused. I've written about these ad nauseum and I don't intend to do so again here, but read again the summary I wrote for the IGP for a refresher if you are interested ( http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). With that out of the way, I'll re-lurk and leave you all to continue these very productive and interesting discussions. -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 12:44:30 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 12:44:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F85@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: The effort to redesign democracy into something else starts with mis-defining it as a "hierarchy." When power is transferred to the people's representatives, they are called public SERVANTS. If there is any 'hierarchy' it's one with the people on top. If that's not the way it's actually working out, the problem is not with democracy but with its wrongful implementation. The internet is a tool, usually for greater democracy such as in Iran, etc. But in any case, the tools do not drive the democracy, as seemed to be suggested in another post calling democracy "outdated" based on the new communication patterns fostered by the internet. If the needs or characteristics of a technology drive democracy, then it is technology that is in control of governance and not people. Democracy means every person gets an equal vote. If that idea is outdated, then please define which people no longer exist in terms of democracy and are no longer equal - they are the new political slave clase. The definition of slave is a person "subject to the will of another" so whoever isn't equal is a slave, in that sense. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/19/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: > Wolfgang, > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:01 AM > To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism > > Michael > > Thanks michael for you long explanation. if I understand you correctly your > are in favour of a multistakeholder dialogue below the governmental level . > In your concept the balancing of the various interests on the ground lead to > a "government" at the top of a hierarchie. And it is the duty of a "good > government" to take all stakeholders legitime interests into consideration > when they develop policies and take decisions, domestically as well as in > internaitonal bodies. If people do not like the government they elect > another government. This is okay and this we practice in good democracies, > in particular in Denmark, since decades. > > YES > > > What works in a "hierarchy" probably does not work in a "network". And again > the chain of representation gets longer and longer in a complicated world > where the chances that the input from the ground ends with the correct > output at the negotiaton table is questionable. > > I AGREE WITH THE FINAL PART OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE... THE ISSUE OF A SHIFT > FROM A "HIERARCHY" TO A "NETWORK" IS NOT VERY CLEAR TO ME (SCOPE, > APPLICATION, EVIDENCE) NOR IS WHAT CONCLUSIONS YOU WOULD DRAW FROM THIS > "SHIFT" AND WHAT BASIS YOU HAVE FOR DRAWING THESE CONCLUSIONS. > > > Again, a more practical example with regard t the forthcoming negotiations > in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA: Do you share the view that it would be > good if the Internet Community lets say from Chile would have a chance to > channel its views not only to the career diplomat, sitting on behalf of the > Chilean Foreign Office in the 2nd Committee but would have also a more > direct channel via Chilenean or Latin American CS structures (or an > ALS/LACRALO) which could be probably much more specific in explaining the > details). > > THIS REQUIRES MORE EXPLANATION--WHAT ARE THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED > (TECHNICAL, NORMATIVE, DISTRIBUTIVE AND SO ON)? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "MORE > DIRECT CHANNEL" HERE, AND WHAT IS BEING CHANNELED TO WHOM AND BY WHOM FOR > WHAT PURPOSE, AT WHOSE INITIATIVE, IN WHAT DECISION MAKING CONTEXT AND SO > ON. CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INSIGHT, INDICATIONS OF > POPULAR SUPPORT/DISAGREEMENT AND SO ON WOULD BE VALUABLE TO THE OVERALL > DISCUSSION AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS (BUT REMEMBERING THAT THESE CHANNELS > ARE AS OPEN TO NON-CS FORCES AND INFLUENCES AS TO CS ONES AND WHERE THE > ISSUE AT HAND MATTERS (FOR EXAMPLE FINANCIALLY), THOSE NON-CS FORCES ARE > LIKELY TO BE BETTER ABLE TO MAKE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS THAN IS CS. > > > World gets more complex. General solutions will not work if they do not > offer space for very differentiated "issue tailored solutions". To get this > right, you need more expertise, knowledge and representation on the table. > > YES, THE WORLD IS GETTING MORE COMPLEX... WHETHER WE WANT "DIFFERENTIATED > SOLUTIONS" IS ANOTHER MATTER--THE OBVIOUS ONE FOR ME IS SAY NET NEUTRALITY. > DO WE REALLY WANT ONE SOLUTION FOR THOSE ABLE TO PAY AND ANOTHER FOR THOSE > NOT ABLE TO PAY. > > THE PRIMARY DIFFERENTIATOR IN MOST SOCIETIES IS WEALTH AND DO WE REALLY WANT > TO DEVELOP GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF ALLOWING ONE > SOLUTION FOR THE RICH AND ANOTHER FOR THE POOR? MAYBE TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS US > TO DO THAT IN NEW WAYS AND IN NEW AREAS BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TRADITIONAL > DEMOCRACY AND ITS BEAUTIFUL TWIN THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IS WORTH PRESERVING > EVEN IF NEW WAYS OF UNDERMINING IT ARE BEING DEVELOPED AS WE SPEAK. > > > Certainly this will lead to a redistribution of power and this provokes the > power struggle we see today. Who loves to share power? But power is shifting > with the complexity of issues. When parliaments where invented in the middle > ages, the kings were not amused that somebody wnated to have a say in > decision making. From a kings perspective the interference of a parliament > in his decisions was seen as unneeded because he had his advisers and owned > all the wisdom. > > YES, THERE IS THE NUB. DO WE AS CS PROMOTE A SHIFT IN POWER AWAY FROM "THE > PEOPLE" TO CORPORATIONS, TECHNOCRATS (EXPERTS), THE WEALTHY, I.E. THOSE WITH > THE RESOURCES AND SKILLS CAPABLE OF EXERTING INFLUENCING (GAMING THE SYSTEM) > IN OUR INTERNET ENABLED WORLD. > > > I like Jefseys concept of polycracy. As we know from Mr. Hegel and Mr.Marx, > simple things are becoming more complex if issues move to a higher level. > And the move from the industrial society (with its representative democracy) > to the information society (with a still undefined governance model) is such > a move to a higher more complex level. > > I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A "polycracy" WOULD LOOK LIKE AND FROM WHAT I GATHER > NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, WITH ANY CLARITY; SO BEFORE WE MAKE OUR COLLECTIVE > LEAP OF FAITH INTO THIS MISTY NEW WORLD I THINK IT MIGHT BE RATHER MORE > USEFUL TO GIVE OUR ATTENTION TO FIGURING OUT HOW THE TECHNO-MAGICAL > PROPERTIES AND AFFORDANCES OF THE DIGITAL WORLD--COMMUNICATIONS EVERYWHERE, > UBIGUITOUS INFORMATION ACCESS AND CONTROL, ALMOST INFINITE UNIVERSAL MEMORY > AND SO ON CAN HELP US TO DEEPEN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM THAT WHATEVER ITS FLAWS > HAS DONE RIGHT BY MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER AND IS STILL THE UNQUESTIONED > ASPIRATION OF THE VAST NUMBERS OF THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO ITS OPPORTUNTIIES > AS WELL AS THOSE EVERYWHERE WITHOUT OTHER SOURCES OF POWER OR OPPORTUNITY. > > BEST, > > MIKE > > > Best wishes > > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mi 18.08.2010 20:23 > An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > > > Wolfgang, > > (I think I asked you first... but anyway...;-) > > This is a bizarre theory of government you are suggesting. Government, at > least democratic governments are not (at least in principle) > "stakeholders"... They don't or at least shouldn't have an independent > "stake" in the outcomes of governance, rather they are the crucible through > which the democratic citizenry expresses their voice as to desireable > outcomes in public policy/decision making. The citizens give individual > elected governments the right to manage the public interest on their behalf > using government public services as their agents through regular and > democratically conducted elections. The citizens have the right to remove > the mandate from those elected governments as they choose if they don't > think that they are executing or managing the public interest appropriately > as they understand this (civics 101). > > Elected governments have an ambition to stay in power and thus act so as to > develop and implement public policies of interest to the various active and > effective stakeholders (business, civil society etc.) in such a way that > these "stakeholders" in turn will provide the necessary support (financial, > human resource support in elections) to allow governments to run successful > campaigns and remain in power. Thus they consult with, accept > representations from, are influenced by these various "stakeholders" > (self-interested parties) but this process does not include transferring > decision making responsibiliity to any of those parties. (Under many > circumstances this would in fact be illegal and seen as corrupt practice.) > > The above sometimes gets distorted (sometimes wildly distorted) because of > the cost and complexity of running modern elections/governments but at least > that's the theory and in reasonably well-ordered democracies things operate > more or less on that principle. > > The fact that many are disillusioned with the practices of certain specific > (democratic) governments doesn't to my mind negate the principles of > democractic practice which seem to me to be provide the greatest good for > the greatest number overall. It does however, suggest that in those > countries where there is concern, those with an interest in making the > operations better should develop ways of enhancing the democratic process. > > Digital tools now provide a variety of new ways for achieving enhanced > ("deepened"?) democracy as for example through facilitating rapid > communication and widespread access to information. This in turn enhances > the possibility of citizens (and thus electors) having for example greater > access to information, means of ensuring accountability on the part of their > elected representatives and transparency of the various processes of > governmental operations and administration. > > I'm sure this sounds incredibly simple minded to most of you folks but it is > probably worth repeating here simply as an antidote to what appear to be > some serious misunderstandings of how (democratic) governments in principle > (and to a very considerable degree in many many instances) in fact do/should > are legally obliged to operate. > > As for ways forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way forward > as being the establishment of some frameworks for global governance (perhaps > in specific identified areas) with clear rules of > operation/legitimacy/participation and means for enforcement. Those rules > may be (perhaps need to be) supranational but it can't I think for reasons > that should be obvious, be left to decisions by those who (have the means > and interest) to show up and participate. The problem with with leaving it > to those who show up (and in the absence of rules) is that those with the > resources and the specific "stake" i.e. return from the outcome will find > whatever means necessary to realize their ends and ultimately dominate the > process. And those with less of a focused "stake" (viz. the public) will > inevitably lose out. (Microsoft's apparently successful suborning of various > global/national standards setting processes to serve their specific product > promotion interests is an obvious example.) > > Again in response to your question, the rules going forward need to be based > on a clear recognition that the over-arching value is support for the > (global) public interest and ensuring that the development of those rules > are based on the broadest possible and democratic inclusion into the > definition of what the public interest is in specific areas. > > Best to all, > > Mike > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:06 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > Dear Michael > > you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between > (traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy > (including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making) > is deepening democracy or not? > > What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms") > > 1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes > decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not) > > 2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know > when governments follow strong lobbying by industry. > > 3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected > parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table. > > If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer? > > Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in > the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the > issue and are immune against corruption. > > Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among > the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative > principles have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in > drafting such principles). > > As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is > concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize > conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be > stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder > (or try to substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation > where different perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions > (which means balance of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and > fair to all parties. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > > Wolfgang, > > This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of > WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... > > I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying, > providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very > valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on > what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, > self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) > somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion > actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making > concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). > > The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in > Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute > for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with > your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/train of accountability > which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer > programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice > however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying > parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not > work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the > several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and > 6. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > Dear David > > thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and > "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first > and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. > > Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In > international relations governments represent our nations. In a one > stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will > listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under > the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is > difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a > given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise > from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits > in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate > the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime > representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in > Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his > best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately > the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open > minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices > and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a > multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and > can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but > the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable > results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is > the core of the multistakeholder approach. > > Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was > removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step > strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS > process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as > silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to > participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for > recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step > 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. > > We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the > start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is > important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit > and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the > various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among > the stakholders have to be developed. > > BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure > companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", > that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in > healthcare. :-))) > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] > Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > > > >> I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit >> playing with words > > This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author > most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be > 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we > have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the > view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to > find even more enlightened synthesis. > > MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and > insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will > 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting > point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. > Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. > Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for > co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid > the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given > 'equal time'? > > There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger > canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, > finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a > recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of > [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of > democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of > the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. > > As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people > govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or > the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more > than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what > will replace representative forms of governance. > > This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be > a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at > some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, > concretely? reliably worked out? > > Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. > > David ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Thu Aug 19 13:34:06 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 10:34:06 -0700 Subject: [governance] Summary Message-ID: <8646129D1A3C4140968A21C50C29B161@userPC> Someone asked for a summary of positions... I would summarize my position as being that I see the role of Civil Society as being to help to define and promote the public (people's) interest (in the area of Internet Governance among others). Mike ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Aug 19 15:11:13 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:11:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI Future of the Web References: <8646129D1A3C4140968A21C50C29B161@userPC> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F8D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Aug 19 16:19:39 2010 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 16:19:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism Message-ID: <4AE6D7F1-639A-4BA3-9B38-EFDC0FAB0C11@post.harvard.edu> Are more votes at the table, from sectors newly inserted around the table, desirable? practicable? Or might we postulate the question differently (hopefully with some further perspective): Do more views around the table contribute to better outcomes? But does an attempt to formalize this – by trying to escalate the views into votes – threaten the prospects? Evidence is clear that better-informed views bring better results. And – done right – adding views can be part of bringing better- informed results. But the ‘done right’ means everything depends on ‘process:’ Exactly how are these additional views brought to bear? As has also been variously noted, this – most fundamentally important – detail, re process, so far is effectively ‘missing in action’ from proposals on the table. But power, and its distribution, is an arbiter. As variously acknowledged, already (despite one earlier demurral). > From a kings perspective the interference of a parliament in his > decisions was seen as unneeded … > > YES , THERE IS THE NUB. A distant forebear, in my larger family, reportedly signed the death warrant of a king (which audacious act succeeded, for a time, but then the signer had to flee …) CS holds no power of the death warrant, or anything like coercive means. In fact, when we look back, we see that reaching Phase 4 at WSIS [as outlined in the original response, below] meant CS got a quarter of an hour – when states instead had hours and days to present. Even in the current moment, we see that (only) a couple individuals from CS will be chosen to give voice, upcoming. Does the process of choosing who ultimately speaks reflect the views of 6 plus billion users – users are our focus, right? (The WSIS history also included a case when the CS position was not checked with the group, as had been committed …) IGF was a vital step forward. But states, for the larger part, have been in a listening-post mode. And the private sector has not come out in force. (Fortunately, IGF has come into its own, through dint of great work, by many, so there is some institutional base from which something might proceed.) Nor is there evidence of the extant power equation shifting materially. It is not unreasonable to imagine: If there is – let’s put it in clear terms – overstepping, in a campaign to move to Stage 6 (ie, to voting power), some of those who hold the real power will not respond with a welcome. Could the proportional blowback even reduce or eliminate possibilities for widening the views considered? Of course, this is a realpolitik analysis. It does not address desirability of the more ‘revolutionary’ proposals on the table. But this, the normative, question has been addressed effectively below. Perhaps the question can be couched: Do we really want competing vectors for ‘representation’ of the user? How – in realistic detail – would such vectors, particularly CS, funnel up the views of six plus billion users? (And yes, though complexity increases, representation is the social mechanism evolved from the ancient past.) We can be sure that – if there ever were a vote for that seat – the scramble for control of the position would be beyond any imagining today. Certainly very far beyond any CS as now existing. Does the [new] ‘network’ save us from a ‘hierarchy’? For me anyway, this has been addressed by (the text also inserted below): > The internet is a tool … [b]ut … the tools do not drive the > democracy … Not to mention that humans have been ‘networked’ for many millennia. Our social existence lies at the core of our being (which also is almost certainly hard-wired to be hierarchical). There is a phrase, ‘technological determinism,’ intended to encourage appreciating that humans, not machines, make outcomes. What of course is also important is how we co-evolve with the machines and the new capabilities they may bring. Which can bring us back to a central question: What are the processes by which more useful viewpoints can be brought to the decision table? Certainly the connectedness of the Internet tool may extend the reach of ancient social bonds. But almost certainly the issues will, in the end, be quintessentially human. How do we fruitfully get more views to a table that will ultimately meld them all into a conclusion? Those who propose ‘a new regime’ surely are on a quest aimed to make our lives better. Rather than the ‘revolutionaries’ we see in the news daily, who do not make lives better (but often much worse – and who disappear from the scene often with ignominy), how might these energies and commitments move us to a better place? What are the processes that might bring more useful views to the decision table (one likely to be controlled by a hierarchy of [hopefully democratic] representatives)? David > On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: Wolfgang, -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:01 AM To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Michael Thanks michael for you long explanation. if I understand you correctly your are in favour of a multistakeholder dialogue below the governmental level . In your concept the balancing of the various interests on the ground lead to a "government" at the top of a hierarchie. And it is the duty of a "good government" to take all stakeholders legitime interests into consideration when they develop policies and take decisions, domestically as well as in internaitonal bodies. If people do not like the government they elect another government. This is okay and this we practice in good democracies, in particular in Denmark, since decades. YES What works in a "hierarchy" probably does not work in a "network". And again the chain of representation gets longer and longer in a complicated world where the chances that the input from the ground ends with the correct output at the negotiaton table is questionable. I AGREE WITH THE FINAL PART OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE... THE ISSUE OF A SHIFT FROM A "HIERARCHY" TO A "NETWORK" IS NOT VERY CLEAR TO ME (SCOPE, APPLICATION, EVIDENCE) NOR IS WHAT CONCLUSIONS YOU WOULD DRAW FROM THIS "SHIFT" AND WHAT BASIS YOU HAVE FOR DRAWING THESE CONCLUSIONS. Again, a more practical example with regard t the forthcoming negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA: Do you share the view that it would be good if the Internet Community lets say from Chile would have a chance to channel its views not only to the career diplomat, sitting on behalf of the Chilean Foreign Office in the 2nd Committee but would have also a more direct channel via Chilenean or Latin American CS structures (or an ALS/LACRALO) which could be probably much more specific in explaining the details). THIS REQUIRES MORE EXPLANATION--WHAT ARE THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED (TECHNICAL, NORMATIVE, DISTRIBUTIVE AND SO ON)? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "MORE DIRECT CHANNEL" HERE, AND WHAT IS BEING CHANNELED TO WHOM AND BY WHOM FOR WHAT PURPOSE, AT WHOSE INITIATIVE, IN WHAT DECISION MAKING CONTEXT AND SO ON. CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, INSIGHT, INDICATIONS OF POPULAR SUPPORT/DISAGREEMENT AND SO ON WOULD BE VALUABLE TO THE OVERALL DISCUSSION AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS (BUT REMEMBERING THAT THESE CHANNELS ARE AS OPEN TO NON-CS FORCES AND INFLUENCES AS TO CS ONES AND WHERE THE ISSUE AT HAND MATTERS (FOR EXAMPLE FINANCIALLY), THOSE NON-CS FORCES ARE LIKELY TO BE BETTER ABLE TO MAKE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS THAN IS CS. World gets more complex. General solutions will not work if they do not offer space for very differentiated "issue tailored solutions". To get this right, you need more expertise, knowledge and representation on the table. YES, THE WORLD IS GETTING MORE COMPLEX... WHETHER WE WANT "DIFFERENTIATED SOLUTIONS" IS ANOTHER MATTER--THE OBVIOUS ONE FOR ME IS SAY NET NEUTRALITY. DO WE REALLY WANT ONE SOLUTION FOR THOSE ABLE TO PAY AND ANOTHER FOR THOSE NOT ABLE TO PAY. THE PRIMARY DIFFERENTIATOR IN MOST SOCIETIES IS WEALTH AND DO WE REALLY WANT TO DEVELOP GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF ALLOWING ONE SOLUTION FOR THE RICH AND ANOTHER FOR THE POOR? MAYBE TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS US TO DO THAT IN NEW WAYS AND IN NEW AREAS BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT TRADITIONAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS BEAUTIFUL TWIN THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IS WORTH PRESERVING EVEN IF NEW WAYS OF UNDERMINING IT ARE BEING DEVELOPED AS WE SPEAK. Certainly this will lead to a redistribution of power and this provokes the power struggle we see today. Who loves to share power? But power is shifting with the complexity of issues. When parliaments where invented in the middle ages, the kings were not amused that somebody wnated to have a say in decision making. From a kings perspective the interference of a parliament in his decisions was seen as unneeded because he had his advisers and owned all the wisdom. YES, THERE IS THE NUB. DO WE AS CS PROMOTE A SHIFT IN POWER AWAY FROM "THE PEOPLE" TO CORPORATIONS, TECHNOCRATS (EXPERTS), THE WEALTHY, I.E. THOSE WITH THE RESOURCES AND SKILLS CAPABLE OF EXERTING INFLUENCING (GAMING THE SYSTEM) IN OUR INTERNET ENABLED WORLD. I like Jefseys concept of polycracy. As we know from Mr. Hegel and Mr.Marx, simple things are becoming more complex if issues move to a higher level. And the move from the industrial society (with its representative democracy) to the information society (with a still undefined governance model) is such a move to a higher more complex level. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A "polycracy" WOULD LOOK LIKE AND FROM WHAT I GATHER NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, WITH ANY CLARITY; SO BEFORE WE MAKE OUR COLLECTIVE LEAP OF FAITH INTO THIS MISTY NEW WORLD I THINK IT MIGHT BE RATHER MORE USEFUL TO GIVE OUR ATTENTION TO FIGURING OUT HOW THE TECHNO-MAGICAL PROPERTIES AND AFFORDANCES OF THE DIGITAL WORLD-- COMMUNICATIONS EVERYWHERE, UBIGUITOUS INFORMATION ACCESS AND CONTROL, ALMOST INFINITE UNIVERSAL MEMORY AND SO ON CAN HELP US TO DEEPEN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM THAT WHATEVER ITS FLAWS HAS DONE RIGHT BY MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER AND IS STILL THE UNQUESTIONED ASPIRATION OF THE VAST NUMBERS OF THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO ITS OPPORTUNTIIES AS WELL AS THOSE EVERYWHERE WITHOUT OTHER SOURCES OF POWER OR OPPORTUNITY. BEST, MIKE Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ > On Aug 19, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: ... The internet is a tool, usually for greater democracy such as in Iran, etc. But in any case, the tools do not drive the democracy, as seemed to be suggested in another post calling democracy "outdated" based on the new communication patterns fostered by the internet. If the needs or characteristics of a technology drive democracy, then it is technology that is in control of governance and not people. ... ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mi 18.08.2010 20:23 An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism Wolfgang, (I think I asked you first... but anyway...;-) This is a bizarre theory of government you are suggesting. Government, at least democratic governments are not (at least in principle) "stakeholders"... They don't or at least shouldn't have an independent "stake" in the outcomes of governance, rather they are the crucible through which the democratic citizenry expresses their voice as to desireable outcomes in public policy/decision making. The citizens give individual elected governments the right to manage the public interest on their behalf using government public services as their agents through regular and democratically conducted elections. The citizens have the right to remove the mandate from those elected governments as they choose if they don't think that they are executing or managing the public interest appropriately as they understand this (civics 101). Elected governments have an ambition to stay in power and thus act so as to develop and implement public policies of interest to the various active and effective stakeholders (business, civil society etc.) in such a way that these "stakeholders" in turn will provide the necessary support (financial, human resource support in elections) to allow governments to run successful campaigns and remain in power. Thus they consult with, accept representations from, are influenced by these various "stakeholders" (self-interested parties) but this process does not include transferring decision making responsibiliity to any of those parties. (Under many circumstances this would in fact be illegal and seen as corrupt practice.) The above sometimes gets distorted (sometimes wildly distorted) because of the cost and complexity of running modern elections/ governments but at least that's the theory and in reasonably well- ordered democracies things operate more or less on that principle. The fact that many are disillusioned with the practices of certain specific (democratic) governments doesn't to my mind negate the principles of democractic practice which seem to me to be provide the greatest good for the greatest number overall. It does however, suggest that in those countries where there is concern, those with an interest in making the operations better should develop ways of enhancing the democratic process. Digital tools now provide a variety of new ways for achieving enhanced ("deepened"?) democracy as for example through facilitating rapid communication and widespread access to information. This in turn enhances the possibility of citizens (and thus electors) having for example greater access to information, means of ensuring accountability on the part of their elected representatives and transparency of the various processes of governmental operations and administration. I'm sure this sounds incredibly simple minded to most of you folks but it is probably worth repeating here simply as an antidote to what appear to be some serious misunderstandings of how (democratic) governments in principle (and to a very considerable degree in many many instances) in fact do/should are legally obliged to operate. As for ways forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way forward as being the establishment of some frameworks for global governance (perhaps in specific identified areas) with clear rules of operation/legitimacy/participation and means for enforcement. Those rules may be (perhaps need to be) supranational but it can't I think for reasons that should be obvious, be left to decisions by those who (have the means and interest) to show up and participate. The problem with with leaving it to those who show up (and in the absence of rules) is that those with the resources and the specific "stake" i.e. return from the outcome will find whatever means necessary to realize their ends and ultimately dominate the process. And those with less of a focused "stake" (viz. the public) will inevitably lose out. (Microsoft's apparently successful suborning of various global/ national standards setting processes to serve their specific product promotion interests is an obvious example.) Again in response to your question, the rules going forward need to be based on a clear recognition that the over-arching value is support for the (global) public interest and ensuring that the development of those rules are based on the broadest possible and democratic inclusion into the definition of what the public interest is in specific areas. Best to all, Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:06 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear Michael you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture between (traditional) representative democrarcy and a new participatiry democracy (including of more stakeholders in policy development and decision making) is deepening democracy or not? What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms") 1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not) 2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal we know when governments follow strong lobbying by industry. 3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table. If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer? Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting in the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do understand the issue and are immune against corruption. Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction among the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such collaborative principles have to be developed (and your are invited to participate in drafting such principles). As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder who is concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you externalize conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. It would be stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of another stakeholder (or try to substitute). It is the collaborative idea of equal participation where different perspectives are puzzled together to find balance solotions (which means balance of legitimate interests) which will be sustainbale and fair to all parties. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism Wolfgang, This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context of WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, lobbying, providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that this was a very valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I don't understand is on what basis you think that a couple of dozen, highly educated, self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European middle aged males could (and should) somehow participate on behalf of (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion actual and potential Internet users in negotiating and decision making concerning global Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks in Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a substitute for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so on. At least with your German diplomat I can see some clear logic/ train of accountability which, if for example, I'm a trade unionist, an unemployed computer programmer, a marginalized Turkish migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice however feeble individually or through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying parties, members, ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not work but where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the several billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and 6. Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism Dear David thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen democracy. Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to more sustainable and workable results. This combination of representative and participatory democracy is the core of the multistakeholder approach. Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison making and to vote. We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit playing with words This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so far in place. As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of governance. This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as here. David -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Thu Aug 19 19:25:25 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:25:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <0E271049-8351-4621-8E59-EC82E42D212A@ciroap.org> References: <3FD0818B24BA456A9FC808FE1D1751B3@userPC> <0E271049-8351-4621-8E59-EC82E42D212A@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819173043.05231bf8@jefsey.com> At 05:05 19/08/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >I agree that civil society must promote the adoption of a framework >for further democratising global governance (for which >"multistakeholderism" is just a convenient and slightly inaccurate >shorthand), beyond the Internet governance regime, in which it is >really just a test-bed. By the way, I would be interested in having a clear definition of what is the "civil society" you people refer to. The various definitions and understandings I read around and in Wikipedia are diverse and do not seem necessarily adequate; or you should organize and show yourselves in a very different way. For example, if one picks the main definition given by Wikipedia, this includes: organizations such as registered charities, development non-governmental organizations, community groups, women's organizations, faith-based organizations, professional associations, trade unions, self-help groups, social movements, business associations, coalitions and advocacy groups. 1. who on this list is representing an organization? 2. which organizations are in this coalition? I also have a major problem with this definition: where is the political control by the citizens, i.e. the political parties? They can hardly be associated to Governements they may oppose. Yet, their control of the network adminance is crucial since one builds there the terms of the possible policy for the years and decades to come. When I was once a candidate to the ICANN BoD on behalf the GA, I used that capacity to try to federate some Consumer organizations. There was some interest on their side, but none on the GA and on the ICANN side. jfc -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Aug 20 05:23:19 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:23:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6D3DFE.8090209@paque.net> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D3BBA.30505@nupef.org.br> <4C6D3DFE.8090209@paque.net> Message-ID: <7CA86E81-B19E-4C2A-A238-1E01089786D7@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for CS interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive to what's going on and calibrated accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for "improvements." Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should be somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message. This relates to selecting nominees as well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these parameters. Best, Bill On Aug 19, 2010, at 4:21 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Graciela, Nomination of Valeria noted. > Valeria, please advise of acceptance and post a short bio here asap. > > I thank Tracy Hackshaw for the nomination, but as I will be very busy in remote participation and other activities, I prefer that someone else take on this role. Valeria (and Marilia) more than covers my Spanish-speaking, female, LAC roles :) > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/19/2010 9:42 AM, Graciela Selaimen wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> speaking form LAC, I suggest Valeria Betancourt as a speaker. She's doing a remarkable work in the region, organizing the IGF LAC preparatory meeting and mobilizing actors from different sectors around the issue of Internet Governance. >> >> best, >> Graciela >> >> Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google escreveu: >>> Hello: >>> >>> I would like to nominate Marilia Maciel and Ginger Paque to treat with the issues raised below. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Tracy >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: >>> >>> I was about to reply to Natasha when Hartmut's post came in. I >>> would say: >>> >>> Thanks, Natasha, for this important news. >>> >>> Everyone: May we please have nominations for consideration for >>> Opening and Closing session CS speakers? >>> >>> I am sure my biases will show here, but I think we should prefer >>> two women and two men, or three women, one man, in order to >>> balance the overall speaker selection (taking into account two >>> nominations for each slot). >>> >>> Geographically, I think we particularly need someone from Latin >>> America/Caribbean as an underrepresented region. >>> >>> Other general guidelines and suggestions welcome. >>> >>> I personally do not mind self-nominations, but people should take >>> Hartmut's comment into consideration, as he is probably not the >>> only one who feels that way. If you would like to be considered, >>> perhaps you should discuss it with a colleague and ask them to >>> nominate you if they think it is appropriate. To maintain >>> partiality, I will not nominate anyone. >>> >>> Please post your nominations and suggestions as soon as possible. >>> I will check with Markus to define the final date for our submission. >>> >>> Thanks, any other comment, Jeremy? >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/18/2010 3:07 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Natasha, >>>> >>>> My message was not related to your name ...! >>>> >>>> all the best >>>> >>>> Hartmut >>>> >>>> =================================== >>>> On 18/8/2010 16:25, Natasha Primo wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Hartmut. Just so we're clear: I'm not nominating myself :) >>>>> >>>>> Natasha >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 18 Aug 2010, at 9:14 PM, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear All, >>>>>> >>>>>> I never like self nomination. >>>>>> >>>>>> rgds >>>>>> >>>>>> Hartmut >>>>>> >>>>>> =================================== >>>>>> On 18/8/2010 15:55, Natasha Primo wrote: >>>>>>> Dear All (esp. Ginger and Jeremy), >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Today I checked with Markus Kummer about the opening and >>>>>>> closing sessions, and he confirmed that we need to propose >>>>>>> names to fill the CS stakeholder slot on the two panels in >>>>>>> question. The IGF secretariat would like more than one name >>>>>>> (per panel) to consider, so it can balance the diversity >>>>>>> criteria among/of the panelists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess the sooner we get these in, the better. Jeremy and/or >>>>>>> Ginger, I'm handing this over to you to coordinate/collate >>>>>>> then. I hope thats in order. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Natasha >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> //\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Natasha Primo >>>>>>> Association for Progressive Communications >>>>>>> Johannesburg, South Africa >>>>>>> Tel/Fax: +27118372122 >>>>>>> Skype/Yahoo: natashaprimo >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Aug 20 06:00:50 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:30:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C6E5252.4030405@itforchange.net> Mawaki, and all I pick two important issues from Mawaki's email, but the ideas being responded to are from the broader discussion here. First is about expertise versus participation. These two ideas and concepts should be kept clearly seperate. Even a despotic king requires expertise to rule, but participation is about democratisation. Using the logic of need for expertise to push for a new post-democratic 'participation model' should be avoided, and in fact is quite dangerous. Such meritocratic / technocratic claims to 'higher level of participation' are one of the main reasons/ logics behind the current challenges to democratic forms in IG (because of its technical roots), including as expressed often in the present thread of discussion. Second, the issue of the need for thriving economy. US became a thriving economy, and more recently China has, without giving a 'formal' role to big business, or non-human legal entities, in policy making. Why would such roles suddenly now be needed to maintain or achieve a thriving economy? This fear of losing out economically is one of the main ones that is put in the minds of developing countries to force them to yield policy spaces to global digital mega-corps. But that is simply extortion-ism by the more powerful, and we need to confront it rather that use it our analyses to justify new governance models. So, the simple question is what is so new now that we need to move away from democratic models to post-democratic ones, especially at the global level? The burden is on those who advocate these new models to show why they are needed, how they will work, and whose interests they will serve. And I have heard rather limited stuff, if any, on these key points. Meanwhile, I have a theory why these post-democratic models have suddenly become so 'popular' at the global levels, which I open up to being contested. One. As the world becomes one economically, and also increasingly drawn closer at social and cultural levels, there is of course the concomitant need for some kind of an effective global polity. The dominant powers, chiefly the developed countries, are however mortally afraid what a global polity with a democratic basis will mean. A democratic form of polity will always tend towards certain degree of greater eqaulisation, egalitarianism; that is the nature of democracy. It is obvious that this simply does not suit their interests. Proposing post democratic model, in the name of greater opening up, where big business has a veto is clearly very convenient (these businesses are largely developed country based, but even developing country big business has a strong confluence of interest with them, explanation of which is given in the next point) . That is what global multistakeholder model of governance is really about. Second reason. There is a rising middle class in what have been called 'emerging economies', but also in not so emerging ones. whose social and cultural, and increasingly economic, and thus political, aspirations are in tune with the dominant classes in the west/ north. This convergence of political interests of rather vast groups across the global is one of the most important transglobal phenomenon today, which I think has not been given the attention it deserves. These transglobal links follow the pathways and networks of economic globalisation but as a phenomenon are different and perhaps larger than economic globalisation. (Wolfgang, yes, the network phenomenon is quite strong today, but it is much more complex and non-linear that as you described it, especially in its strong exclusionary tendencies.) This new transglobal dominant class has a strong commonality of interests, and is in the same way very wary of a global democratic polity as the developed countires (These rising middle classes are indeed finding it a happy situation that the national polities no longer can afford much social welfare expenditure and much redistribution because of the fear of global capital fleeing; they certainly do not want a global polity to reinstate such democratic/ welfarist norms globally, and therefrom nationally.) In such a situation, I understand that the role of a progressive global civil society is to counter these anti-democratic developments, rather then flow in their chimeric allurements and deviously built false promises, much less actually contribute to building, the discourse and justifications for these post-democratic models. Unfortunately, excuse me to say so, much of civil society, especially in the IG arena has not stood up to the challenge of resisting the dominant forces and their plans, and building alternatives that bespeak the interests of those who are systematically being left out. It often more closely represents the viewpoints and the interests this emergent trans-global middle class. One can give many instances of it but this is already a long email and so i'll stop here :). Parminder On Wednesday 18 August 2010 08:47 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > In the same time, it is precisely because MS processes have (so far) > applied for "gathering perspectives around specialized issues" that I > think inevitably you'll have to accept the direct participation of > 'non-natural' or legal entities as opposed to natural individuals and > citizens. For the point then is precisely to get the most informed > advice possible, irrespective of the source. > > So (returning to the broader question) the problem is less one of > 'who's who' and 'who is or is not a legitimate participant' and more > one of process. > > As a reminder, multistakeholder (sure, not the best word one can dream > of) says *multi*-stakeholder, not *tri*-stakeholder. At this time, > many participants - probably most - seem to go along with the idea > that there are three main stakeholder groups but obviously we know > that doesn't necessarily have to be, and will probably not always be, > that way. I believe things are and should be more fluid than when we > try to categorize them with fuzzy labels. > > First, ultimate authority to make public policy lies with the > government, still at this point. And government will always have a > competitive advantage on that front as long as only it has the > authority to enforce the law. So how do we get from here to full, or > nearly full, multistakeholder policymaking? As things stand, it will > obviously depend on how able the other groups are to weigh on > governments. > > Second, private business and corporations are crucial for a nation's > economical health by creating wealth and employment. Whether we like > it or not, any democratic government would rather preside over a > thriving and innovative economy (and for their nation first, before > they worry about the global, unless the national largely depends on > the global). So governments have obvious good reasons to listen and > support private business interests while making policy. > > Third: What is civil society's value proposition? It is up to CS -- > and all remaining part of the *multi-* -- to make its case and choose > its strategies. > > I'm not sure what people mean when they talk about full > multistakeholder (not just process or participation but actual) > policymaking, or CS being on "equal footing" with the government. I > don't know whether that implies that we're fighting or should be > fighting for up to a seat around the signing table with the signature > of CS delegates alongside those of government on the decision > documents. > > Also, it seems vain to me that anyone spend energy arguing that CS is > or should be the one most legitimate party whose views governments > should take into account over others' while making decisions. > > But I suspect possible paths to ensure decision outcomes are as > multistakeholder as possible would require CS talking to/ petitioning/ > lobbying/ pressuring/ etc. not only governments, but also private > business and any other possible parties. To the extent that those > other parties are not by themselves ready to fully embrace CS views, > the onus will be on CS to show governments how doing away with CS > views might be damaging to the polity and to them, and business how > supporting CS inputs (at least some of them) might be good for their > long term interests (if only because CS might expose their > anti-citizen behaviors otherwise), etc. > > To start -- not sure if this has already been done, as I've had my > hiatus with these discussion, but...-- this WSIS-generated CS > coalition would already make history if it only manages to come up > with clearly defined formative principles with regard to what 'public > interest' might be when it comes to policymaking towards information > society, and further principles or rules that should be observed to > ensure that public interest and CS basic values be included in any > policymaking process and decision. Just something parsimonious, > fundamental, without verbiage, as one would do for a constitutional > preamble or bill of... norms, so to speak. > > Mawaki > > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, parminder wrote: > > > >> My main problem with the ism is as follows. 'Multistakeholder participation' >> has for long been a valid concept in democratic practice, especially in >> terms of gathering perspectives around specialized issues ( and generally >> not so much in deciding larger/ broader/ overall public interest issues >> where 'public interest' actors are mostly engaged)), and works clearly >> within, and in subordination to, traditional (representative) democratic >> institution and political processes. >> >> > ........... > > What is clearly > >> different in any such democratic global process/ institution vis a vis >> multistakeholderism is that in the former only natural human beings and >> their natural collectives are recognized entities with rights and equality, >> and legal entities like corporates are not accepted to be at the same level. >> MSism however tends to do 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fsylla at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 09:15:51 2010 From: fsylla at gmail.com (Fatimata Seye Sylla) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:15:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger, I accept Tijani's nomination! Best, Fatimata On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point noted, and > nomination of Adam Peake noted. > > Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a refresher? > > Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM Bazlur > Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla, > Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make sure they are willing > to speak, expect to be at the meeting, and post their one-paragraph bios? > Additional nominations should do the same. > > Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing those named > above. > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: > > Dear Ginger Paque , > Who will from Asia ? > I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. > With best regards, > > > Bazlu > _______________________ > AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR > Chief Executive Officer > Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) > [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social > Council] > & > Head, Community Radio Academy > > House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 > Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh > > Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 > Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 > E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Ginger Paque > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim > *Sent:* Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM > *Subject:* Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and > closing > > Noted, McTim, thank you! > > Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who are > not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger > > On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: > > I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Fatimata Seye Sylla -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 09:23:17 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 08:53:17 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Aug 20 10:19:49 2010 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:19:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <4AE6D7F1-639A-4BA3-9B38-EFDC0FAB0C11@post.harvard.edu> References: <4AE6D7F1-639A-4BA3-9B38-EFDC0FAB0C11@post.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <4C6E8F05.8040702@diplomacy.edu> While most of the government/UN 'world' is on holidays, we are having one of the most interesting discussions ever on this list. Is this another proof that IG is unique? ;) Here are a few reflections on the David/Michael/Wolfgang thread on IGF, multistakeholderism, etc. I would be very careful in using the argument that IG and the IGF are unique because of the uniqueness of the Internet. The Internet is no longer as 'unique' (or perceived to be) as it was when Barlow was drafting his declaration from Davos or when we were discussing IG at the WGIG. In the meantime, the Internet has become 'grounded' in traditional geography. The formula could be: the more the Internet is anchored in geography, the less unique is its governance. Today, with geo-location tools (combining convenience and control) we are more geographically anchored than in the 'fleshware', pre-Internet era. Once we are geo-located, governance and policy move to 'normality', applying principles that are as old as the Code of Hammurabi. In addition, one has also to be careful with the 'networked' argument and the end of traditional hierarchy. The world maybe 'flat', but the organisation of human society is still hierarchical. H. Simon, Nobel Prize winner, put some serious thinking into this matter. Ultimately, he argued that hierarchy is inherent to human organisation. What makes a difference is how this hierarchy functions. Are social elevators free to use? Is this hierarchy organised on might or merit? Is it controlled? Lastly, on the communication aspect.... Most of us have contracted the chrono-narcissism virus, arguing that our own time is unique. Given the excitement of the last 20 years (end of the cold war, beginning of the Internet) it is not surprising. Moreover, it is human to think that we live our short time on the globe in a unique era. The problem starts when this argument is overused and inflated. Like any inflation it reduces the value of the inflated object. People get tired of it. Even Newsweek no longer announces every other issue with 'revolutionary', 'brave new world', etc. The pendulum has moved - too far - into other direction of skepticism and caution. Everybody wants to find a 'Black Swan'. We have to be aware of this significant shift when we communicate IG/IGF stories. Paradoxically, in spite of all this, the IGF really is still unique. What is the uniqueness of the IGF? First, it has been a great success. Today, when many global policy initiatives are stuck (climate change, NPT, middle east) the IGF should be/is a shining example. It is successful because it did not let policy differences degenerate into crisis and conflict. Today, with minor exceptions, we can access all Internet content. There are almost 2 billion users, with more and more people from developing countries. Controversial issues such as ICANN have been handled with wisdom, and given us time to sort out problems. The IGF played major role in the overall IG success. The IGF has also started creating awareness that inclusiveness and the multistakeholder approach are not just ethical questions. They are equally, if not more, of a practical matter. The less people are engaged, the less they feel ownership of the global policy, the less they want to follow it. The limitations of current global policy are noticeable everywhere. One of the consequences of the failure of development policy is people getting on the boat sailing towards wealthier countries. An unbalanced IPR regime makes people feel that when they copy protected software or video they are not doing anything unethical. The list can continue.... In many cases the reason is that traditional policy-making has too narrow “a bandwidth” (parliament - government - diplomatic service – multilateral negotiations). It has legal, but not popular legitimacy. New forms that will increase the legitimacy of policy-making on national, regional and global levels are needed for the practical reasons of implementing what is agreed. Micheal's comment on broadening participation beyond the IGF "usual suspects" is extremely important. The IGF's success is shown in many low-cost but powerful procedural improvements. The trio fantasticus (Marilia, Ginger and Bernard), with the support of the IGF Secretariat, has made remote participation a great success. This year there will be 28 hubs worldwide, with people discussing their local IG issues in schools, Internet cafes, town halls. Again, without pomp, against skepticism, with hard work they have built something which is of interest to many, beyond the IG circle. For example, in September, at the annual meeting of directors of all diplomatic academies in the world, Marilia will present the IGF's remote participation experience (http://ifdt10.diplomacy.edu/programme). The list can continue..... the IGF is in many respects relevant and unique, but it is not 'more' unique because of the Internet's 'uniqueness'. What was important in 2005 is not necessarily so any more. The world has changed a lot over the last 5 years and with it the raison d'être of the IGF. Best, Jovan On 8/19/10 10:19 PM, David Allen wrote: > Are more votes at the table, from sectors newly inserted around the > table, desirable? practicable? Or might we postulate the question > differently (hopefully with some further perspective): > > Do more views around the table contribute to better outcomes? But > does an attempt to formalize this – by trying to escalate the views > into votes – threaten the prospects? > > Evidence is clear that better-informed views bring better results. > And – /done right/ – adding views can be part of bringing > better-informed results. But the ‘done right’ means everything > depends on ‘process:’ Exactly how are these additional views brought > to bear? > > As has also been variously noted, this – most fundamentally important > – detail, re process, so far is effectively ‘missing in action’ from > proposals on the table. > > But power, and its distribution, is an arbiter. As variously > acknowledged, already (despite one earlier demurral). > >> From a kings perspective the interference of a parliament in his >> decisions was seen as unneeded … >> >> YES , THERE IS THE NUB. > > A distant forebear, in my larger family, reportedly signed the death > warrant of a king (which audacious act succeeded, for a time, but then > the signer had to flee …) CS holds no power of the death warrant, or > anything like coercive means. > > In fact, when we look back, we see that reaching Phase 4 at WSIS [as > outlined in the original response, below] meant CS got a quarter of an > hour – when states instead had hours and days to present. Even in the > current moment, we see that (only) a couple individuals from CS will > be chosen to give voice, upcoming. Does the process of choosing who > ultimately speaks reflect the views of 6 plus billion users – users > are our focus, right? (The WSIS history also included a case when the > CS position was not checked with the group, as had been committed …) > > IGF was a vital step forward. But states, for the larger part, have > been in a listening-post mode. And the private sector has not come > out in force. (Fortunately, IGF has come into its own, through dint > of great work, by many, so there is some institutional base from which > something might proceed.) > > Nor is there evidence of the extant power equation shifting materially. > > It is not unreasonable to imagine: If there is – let’s put it in > clear terms – overstepping, in a campaign to move to Stage 6 (ie, to > voting power), some of those who hold the real power will not respond > with a welcome. Could the proportional blowback even reduce or > eliminate possibilities for widening the views considered? > > Of course, this is a realpolitik analysis. It does not address > desirability of the more ‘revolutionary’ proposals on the table. > > But this, the normative, question has been addressed effectively > below. Perhaps the question can be couched: Do we really want > competing vectors for ‘representation’ of the user? > > How – in realistic detail – would such vectors, particularly CS, > funnel up the views of six plus billion users? (And yes, though > complexity increases, representation is the social mechanism evolved > from the ancient past.) We can be sure that – if there ever were a > vote for that seat – the scramble for control of the position would be > beyond any imagining today. Certainly very far beyond any CS as now > existing. > > Does the [new] ‘network’ save us from a ‘hierarchy’? For me anyway, > this has been addressed by (the text also inserted below): > >> The internet is a tool … [b]ut … the tools do not drive the democracy … > > Not to mention that humans have been ‘networked’ for many millennia. > Our social existence lies at the core of our being (which also is > almost certainly hard-wired to be hierarchical). > > There is a phrase, ‘technological determinism,’ intended to encourage > appreciating that humans, not machines, make outcomes. What of course > is also important is how we co-evolve with the machines and the new > capabilities they may bring. > > Which can bring us back to a central question: What are the processes > by which more useful viewpoints can be brought to the decision table? > > Certainly the connectedness of the Internet tool may extend the reach > of ancient social bonds. But almost certainly the issues will, in the > end, be quintessentially human. How do we fruitfully get more views > to a table that will ultimately meld them all into a conclusion? > > Those who propose ‘a new regime’ surely are on a quest aimed to make > our lives better. Rather than the ‘revolutionaries’ we see in the > news daily, who do not make lives better (but often much worse – and > who disappear from the scene often with ignominy), how might these > energies and commitments move us to a better place? > > What are the processes that might bring more useful views to the > decision table (one likely to be controlled by a hierarchy of > [hopefully democratic] representatives)? > > David > >> On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:28 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Wolfgang, > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 2:01 AM > To: Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism > > Michael > > Thanks michael for you long explanation. if I understand you correctly > your are in favour of a multistakeholder dialogue below the > governmental level . In your concept the balancing of the various > interests on the ground lead to a "government" at the top of a > hierarchie. And it is the duty of a "good government" to take all > stakeholders legitime interests into consideration when they develop > policies and take decisions, domestically as well as in internaitonal > bodies. If people do not like the government they elect another > government. This is okay and this we practice in good democracies, in > particular in Denmark, since decades. > > YES > > > What works in a "hierarchy" probably does not work in a "network". And > again the chain of representation gets longer and longer in a > complicated world where the chances that the input from the ground > ends with the correct output at the negotiaton table is questionable. > > I AGREE WITH THE FINAL PART OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE... THE ISSUE OF A > SHIFT FROM A "HIERARCHY" TO A "NETWORK" IS NOT VERY CLEAR TO ME > (SCOPE, APPLICATION, EVIDENCE) NOR IS WHAT CONCLUSIONS YOU WOULD DRAW > FROM THIS "SHIFT" AND WHAT BASIS YOU HAVE FOR DRAWING THESE CONCLUSIONS. > > > Again, a more practical example with regard t the forthcoming > negotiations in the 2nd Committee of the UNGA: Do you share the view > that it would be good if the Internet Community lets say from Chile > would have a chance to channel its views not only to the career > diplomat, sitting on behalf of the Chilean Foreign Office in the 2nd > Committee but would have also a more direct channel via Chilenean or > Latin American CS structures (or an ALS/LACRALO) which could be > probably much more specific in explaining the details). > > THIS REQUIRES MORE EXPLANATION--WHAT ARE THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED > (TECHNICAL, NORMATIVE, DISTRIBUTIVE AND SO ON)? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY > "MORE DIRECT CHANNEL" HERE, AND WHAT IS BEING CHANNELED TO WHOM AND BY > WHOM FOR WHAT PURPOSE, AT WHOSE INITIATIVE, IN WHAT DECISION MAKING > CONTEXT AND SO ON. CERTAINLY CONTRIBUTING ADDITIONAL KNOWLEDGE, > INSIGHT, INDICATIONS OF POPULAR SUPPORT/DISAGREEMENT AND SO ON WOULD > BE VALUABLE TO THE OVERALL DISCUSSION AND DECISION MAKING PROCESS (BUT > REMEMBERING THAT THESE CHANNELS ARE AS OPEN TO NON-CS FORCES AND > INFLUENCES AS TO CS ONES AND WHERE THE ISSUE AT HAND MATTERS (FOR > EXAMPLE FINANCIALLY), THOSE NON-CS FORCES ARE LIKELY TO BE BETTER ABLE > TO MAKE THESE CONTRIBUTIONS THAN IS CS. > > > World gets more complex. General solutions will not work if they do > not offer space for very differentiated "issue tailored solutions". To > get this right, you need more expertise, knowledge and representation > on the table. > > YES, THE WORLD IS GETTING MORE COMPLEX... WHETHER WE WANT > "DIFFERENTIATED SOLUTIONS" IS ANOTHER MATTER--THE OBVIOUS ONE FOR ME > IS SAY NET NEUTRALITY. DO WE REALLY WANT ONE SOLUTION FOR THOSE ABLE > TO PAY AND ANOTHER FOR THOSE NOT ABLE TO PAY. > > THE PRIMARY DIFFERENTIATOR IN MOST SOCIETIES IS WEALTH AND DO WE > REALLY WANT TO DEVELOP GOVERNANCE SYSTEMS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF > ALLOWING ONE SOLUTION FOR THE RICH AND ANOTHER FOR THE POOR? MAYBE > TECHNOLOGY ALLOWS US TO DO THAT IN NEW WAYS AND IN NEW AREAS BUT IT > SEEMS TO ME THAT TRADITIONAL DEMOCRACY AND ITS BEAUTIFUL TWIN THE > SOCIAL CONTRACT IS WORTH PRESERVING EVEN IF NEW WAYS OF UNDERMINING IT > ARE BEING DEVELOPED AS WE SPEAK. > > > Certainly this will lead to a redistribution of power and this > provokes the power struggle we see today. Who loves to share power? > But power is shifting with the complexity of issues. When parliaments > where invented in the middle ages, the kings were not amused that > somebody wnated to have a say in decision making. From a kings > perspective the interference of a parliament in his decisions was seen > as unneeded because he had his advisers and owned all the wisdom. > > YES, THERE IS THE NUB. DO WE AS CS PROMOTE A SHIFT IN POWER AWAY FROM > "THE PEOPLE" TO CORPORATIONS, TECHNOCRATS (EXPERTS), THE WEALTHY, I.E. > THOSE WITH THE RESOURCES AND SKILLS CAPABLE OF EXERTING INFLUENCING > (GAMING THE SYSTEM) IN OUR INTERNET ENABLED WORLD. > > > I like Jefseys concept of polycracy. As we know from Mr. Hegel and > Mr.Marx, simple things are becoming more complex if issues move to a > higher level. And the move from the industrial society (with its > representative democracy) to the information society (with a still > undefined governance model) is such a move to a higher more complex level. > > I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A "polycracy" WOULD LOOK LIKE AND FROM WHAT I > GATHER NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE, WITH ANY CLARITY; SO BEFORE WE MAKE > OUR COLLECTIVE LEAP OF FAITH INTO THIS MISTY NEW WORLD I THINK IT > MIGHT BE RATHER MORE USEFUL TO GIVE OUR ATTENTION TO FIGURING OUT HOW > THE TECHNO-MAGICAL PROPERTIES AND AFFORDANCES OF THE DIGITAL > WORLD--COMMUNICATIONS EVERYWHERE, UBIGUITOUS INFORMATION ACCESS AND > CONTROL, ALMOST INFINITE UNIVERSAL MEMORY AND SO ON CAN HELP US TO > DEEPEN A DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM THAT WHATEVER ITS FLAWS HAS DONE RIGHT BY > MORE PEOPLE THAN ANY OTHER AND IS STILL THE UNQUESTIONED ASPIRATION OF > THE VAST NUMBERS OF THOSE WITHOUT ACCESS TO ITS OPPORTUNTIIES AS WELL > AS THOSE EVERYWHERE WITHOUT OTHER SOURCES OF POWER OR OPPORTUNITY. > > BEST, > > MIKE > > > Best wishes > > > wolfgang > > ________________________________ > >> On Aug 19, 2010, at 12:44 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > ... > > The internet is a tool, usually for greater democracy such as in Iran, > etc. But in any case, the tools do not drive the democracy, as seemed > to be suggested in another post calling democracy "outdated" based on > the new communication patterns fostered by the internet. If the needs > or characteristics of a technology drive democracy, then it is > technology that is in control of governance and not people. > > ... > ________________________________ > > Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mi 18.08.2010 20:23 > An: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > > > Wolfgang, > > (I think I asked you first... but anyway...;-) > > This is a bizarre theory of government you are suggesting. Government, > at least democratic governments are not (at least in principle) > "stakeholders"... They don't or at least shouldn't have an independent > "stake" in the outcomes of governance, rather they are the crucible > through which the democratic citizenry expresses their voice as to > desireable outcomes in public policy/decision making. The citizens > give individual elected governments the right to manage the public > interest on their behalf using government public services as their > agents through regular and democratically conducted elections. The > citizens have the right to remove the mandate from those elected > governments as they choose if they don't think that they are executing > or managing the public interest appropriately as they understand this > (civics 101). > > Elected governments have an ambition to stay in power and thus act so > as to develop and implement public policies of interest to the various > active and effective stakeholders (business, civil society etc.) in > such a way that these "stakeholders" in turn will provide the > necessary support (financial, human resource support in elections) to > allow governments to run successful campaigns and remain in power. > Thus they consult with, accept representations from, are influenced by > these various "stakeholders" (self-interested parties) but this > process does not include transferring decision making responsibiliity > to any of those parties. (Under many circumstances this would in fact > be illegal and seen as corrupt practice.) > > The above sometimes gets distorted (sometimes wildly distorted) > because of the cost and complexity of running modern > elections/governments but at least that's the theory and in reasonably > well-ordered democracies things operate more or less on that principle. > > The fact that many are disillusioned with the practices of certain > specific (democratic) governments doesn't to my mind negate the > principles of democractic practice which seem to me to be provide the > greatest good for the greatest number overall. It does however, > suggest that in those countries where there is concern, those with an > interest in making the operations better should develop ways of > enhancing the democratic process. > > Digital tools now provide a variety of new ways for achieving enhanced > ("deepened"?) democracy as for example through facilitating rapid > communication and widespread access to information. This in turn > enhances the possibility of citizens (and thus electors) having for > example greater access to information, means of ensuring > accountability on the part of their elected representatives and > transparency of the various processes of governmental operations and > administration. > > I'm sure this sounds incredibly simple minded to most of you folks but > it is probably worth repeating here simply as an antidote to what > appear to be some serious misunderstandings of how (democratic) > governments in principle (and to a very considerable degree in many > many instances) in fact do/should are legally obliged to operate. > > As for ways forward, I'm with Parminder in seeing the necessary way > forward as being the establishment of some frameworks for global > governance (perhaps in specific identified areas) with clear rules of > operation/legitimacy/participation and means for enforcement. Those > rules may be (perhaps need to be) supranational but it can't I think > for reasons that should be obvious, be left to decisions by those who > (have the means and interest) to show up and participate. The problem > with with leaving it to those who show up (and in the absence of > rules) is that those with the resources and the specific "stake" i.e. > return from the outcome will find whatever means necessary to realize > their ends and ultimately dominate the process. And those with less of > a focused "stake" (viz. the public) will inevitably lose out. > (Microsoft's apparently successful suborning of various > global/national standards setting processes to serve their specific > product promotion interests is an obvious example.) > > Again in response to your question, the rules going forward need to be > based on a clear recognition that the over-arching value is support > for the (global) public interest and ensuring that the development of > those rules are based on the broadest possible and democratic > inclusion into the definition of what the public interest is in > specific areas. > > Best to all, > > Mike > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 10:06 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; > Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > Dear Michael > > you did not comment on my key point: Do you agree that a mixture > between (traditional) representative democrarcy and a new > participatiry democracy (including of more stakeholders in policy > development and decision making) is deepening democracy or not? > > What are the options (if you go beyond abstract theories about "isms") > > 1. One-Stakeholder Approach: A government develops policy and makes > decisions (a good government consult a bad does it not) > > 2. Two-Stakeholder Approach: In reality this is the traditional deal > we know when governments follow strong lobbying by industry. > > 3. Multi-Stakeholder Approach: This brings all concerned and affected > parties, including civil society, to the negotiation table. > > If you have multiple choice, what do you prefer? > > Another questions is how to organize a process that the people sitting > in the room do get a legitimacy from their constituencies, do > understand the issue and are immune against corruption. > > Another questions is also, what the rules will be for the interaction > among the participating parties in a multistakholder model. Such > collaborative principles have to be developed (and your are invited to > participate in drafting such principles). > > As Mawaki has said, it would make no sense to exclude one stakeholder > who is concerned or affected. This would lead to process where you > externalize conflicts which then would block sustainbale developments. > It would be stupid if one stakeholder would try to play the role of > another stakeholder (or try to substitute). It is the collaborative > idea of equal participation where different perspectives are puzzled > together to find balance solotions (which means balance of legitimate > interests) which will be sustainbale and fair to all parties. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 23:04 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; > Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > Betreff: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > > Wolfgang, > > This is not meant as a rhetorical question. I asked it in the context > of WSIS years ago, I asked it of Avri and now I'm asking it of you... > > I completely agree about the role of CS in advocating, advising, > lobbying, providing expertise and so on and so on--and I agree that > this was a very valuable, even crucial contribution to WSIS. What I > don't understand is on what basis you think that a couple of dozen, > highly educated, self-selected, self-funded, largely Northern European > middle aged males could (and should) somehow participate on behalf of > (?) global civil society i.e. 6.5 billion actual and potential > Internet users in negotiating and decision making concerning global > Internet governance (or anything else for that matter). > > The fact that these folks were able to show up for a couple of weeks > in Geneva and then again in Tunis doesn't it seems to me provide a > substitute for accountability, transparency, representivity, and so > on. At least with your German diplomat I can see some clear > logic/train of accountability which, if for example, I'm a trade > unionist, an unemployed computer programmer, a marginalized Turkish > migrant, or whatever I can gain a voice however feeble individually or > through my advocacy (or other) group lobbying parties, members, > ministers who in turn instruct your German rep. It may not work but > where would be the equivalent linkages for these folks or the several > billion others in the scenario that you are positing in Steps 5 and 6. > > Mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 1:01 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; > David Allen; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: AW: [governance] multistakeholderism > > > Dear David > > thanks for your inspiring contribution. "Deepening democracy" and > "multistakeholderism" are in my eyes not a contradiction. It is the > first and overall aim of the multistakeholder approach to deepen > democracy. > > Decisions in a representative democracy are made by our parliaments. > In international relations governments represent our nations. In a one > stakeholder model only the government has a voice. A good government > will listen to the people, a bad government will ignore this. However > even under the best circumstances the chain of representation gets > very long and it is difficult tho channel the opinion of the majority > of the Internet users in a given country into the statements of career > diplomat who takes only advise from his "Capital". Just to take one > example: The German diplomat who sits in the second Committee of the > UN General Assembly, which has to negotiate the future of the IGF in > October/November 2010 is the "legitime representative" of Germany and > represents insofar also the Internet Users in Germany. He has to > negotiate around 50 issues and even if he tries to do his best he can > not be an expert in this field. If he is wise (and fortunately the > German governmental representatives in ICANN and the IGF are very open > minded and cooperate with the public) he will listen to the various > voices and than make his own decision if he has no instructions from > his HQ. In a multistakeholder approach, there are more voices on the > table. They will and can NOT substitute the diplomat who has to play > "his respective role", but the inclusion of more viewpoins can lead to > more sustainable and workable results. This combination of > representative and participatory democracy is the core of the > multistakeholder approach. > > Remember the early days of WSIS, wenn MS was not yet recognized and CS > was removed from the room after the plenary meeting. We developed a > multi-step strategy to include CS in policy and decision making within > the WSIS process. Step 1: The right to sit in the room also in working > groups as silent onlookers, Step 2: The right to make statements. Step > 3: The right to participate in the discussion, Step 4. The right to > draft language for recommendations, Step 5: The right to participate > in the negotiations, Step 6: The right to participate in decison > making and to vote. > > We reached Step 4 in WSIS, which was not bad if you compare it with > the start. To have different voices on the table when policies are > developed is important. But it is true. It can not be the end of the > story just to sit and to say some words. Insofar, rights, duties and > responsibilties of the various actors have to be defined and > procedures for the interaction among the stakholders have to be developed. > > BTW, it would be good if the pharma industry and the private health > insure companies, when they negotiate with governments, would include > the "users", that is the patients, into the discussion. This would be > multistakeholder in healthcare. :-))) > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: David Allen [mailto:David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu] > Gesendet: Di 17.08.2010 05:52 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: Re:[governance] multistakeholderism > > > > I really do not see big differences between ... It is a little bit > playing with words > > This comes perilously close to demeaning the original author. That > author most likely did not see his carefully thought-out propositions > to be 'playing with words'... Such is not convivial for the quality > exchange we have seen on this list of late. Instead, if we take care > to respect the view we do not share, then our contrary reasons and > evidence may help to find even more enlightened synthesis. > > MS'ism - as practiced in Internet Governance - has been a means to try > and insert more viewpoints into United Nations processes. Whether that > will 'work' is still unclear. Power, as held by the states, is the > starting point. Will they cede and share some power? That is the core > question. Certainly, MS'ism is what has given the likes of CS some > seat at the table. Indeed, that is to be treasured. Has it also > created the possibility for co-opting CS, by picking and choosing > which CS voices are chosen, from amid the cacophony? Has CS (or for > that matter the other 'estate') been given 'equal time'? > > There is a backdrop against which this has occurred. On that much > larger canvas, there are the seemingly ever-present pressures for > expansion, finally now toward what some would characterize as a global > polity. In a recent post, if I remember, the Internet has been dubbed > a new form of [effectively global] government. Others have sought new > forms of democratized governance, globally, seeing a failure of states > per se and of the elected and representative forms of government so > far in place. > > As far as I can see, the Internet is a form of communication. But > people govern - communications tools, such as the Internet, can be > turned to one or the other means, means often with very different end > effects. (Much) more than that, there is a dearth of thoughtfully- > worked out detail for what will replace representative forms of > governance. > > This larger canvas can situate the present subject: MS'ism might > indeed be a 'step along the way.' But what are further steps, > realistically? and at some (at least intermediate) end points, what > forms of governance, concretely? reliably worked out? > > Heading that direction could be one goal of quality exchange, such as > here. > > David -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 11:24:31 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:24:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> Message-ID: Whenever one does not have a distinct term of office in which one essentially can't be removed (as with most elected representatives) these kinds of "be careful" and "be strategic" and "don't be negative" considerations always arise. This is the condition of every single civil society "stakeholder" granted some sort of voice in a process: They know full well that they can not say everything, can't very often be negative, and they feel they must be strategic in what they talk or complain about. It is thus that advocating for the truth is replaced by responding to the carrots and sticks of the powers that be, which is my interpretation of the class of statements this quote from below is in: "it would be a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration." Isn't it nearly always a bad idea to "directly take on" the powers that be from a certain self-preservation perspective? What if the powers that be are abusive? In that case, they will really not appreciate a "negative" approach and do need to be addressed most directly. To use an example by way of analogy using something everyone can understand: If someone puts their hand down somebody elses pocket, invading the security of their person as well as property, and keeps fishing around down there, is there any approach to take other than directly taking them on and firmly requesting or demanding the full removal of their hand from one's pocket? Only a slavish fear of imminent harm would counsel caution or lack of negativity in directly taking on such a person. Only a fool would compromise such that the hand only need come half way out of the pocket. Only the confused in this instance would get hung up on the demand "get your hand out of my pocket right now" as being "negative." I'm not saying now is definitely the time to be direct and negative. But, I am saying that the assessment of the necessity of being "negative" and "direct" has to be independent of the "threat" of IGF non-renewal and the like, and thus independent of conflicts of interest. Any who purport to give voice to people or to interests are misrepresenting either the nature and certainly the extent of their giving voice when they are being strategic. Without this disregard of the personal or organizational costs of speaking the truth, the decisions about what is said or not said ultimately lack integrity -- and this is intrinsically justified by a belief that one is under a degree of duress, such as IGF renewal. This fear can be backwards. I was essentially an elected official for several years, a governor of a bar association. I made a "no holds barred" speech, calling the situation "catastrophic" and naming names. The minutes reflect that I made "compelling" arguments on an issue not really heard before and an effort was set up to draft a permanent ("stakeholder?") committee to forward a resolution to solve the problem. That was done, new voices were brought in to (in effect) study solutions to the problem I emphatically laid out. Today, it's been addressed. I learned from that experience and others that holding back can hurt somebody pretty badly if they have a good faith audience who might otherwise respond to a compelling call to justice. Approached the other way, whatever substantive points are "strategically" held back tend to prove that civil society does not really represent people first and foremost. Rather, it has first and foremost in its mind its own self-preservation and continuing access to the apparent halls of power. That's quite human, and it may be done sometimes for apparently noble motives like "continuing the great and important work we have." But still a conflict of interest that undermines civil society's claim to importance. Wisdom, in my opinion, comes in seeing that these excuses or considerations for not speaking truth to power are virtually always present in some significant degree, and thus there is never a good time to speak the uncensored truth, if one allows personal or organizational conflicts of interest to hold sway. The challenge, instead, is outlined in my P.S. below - to not hold back but to speak articulately, compellingly and (usually) diplomatically. These are the only true qualifications, and anyone can meet them at one or many times of their life, regardless of background or education, but we must know when to send the sober policy wonks, and the answer to that question is surely not "always." Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. There is typically always a way to diplomatically say what needs to be said without taking away any points or any force in what one is saying. I tried to above, as it would have been shorter and less diplomatic to say: "Don't be a sycophant to power, have some integrity and actually try to give voice to all of the voices you know in the halls of power where they aren't heard often enough, or ever. "Pulling punches" may or may not succeed at self-preservation, but it certainly constitutes a confllct of interest and it certainly destroys the claim that civil society is up to the task of representing anything other than a strategic slice of civil society." The main text above is closest to my true intent, and it is also more diplomatic (I trust). On 8/20/10, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. [...] You might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see below) > Best, Ginger> > > Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be > renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in > intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for CS > interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive to > what's going on and calibrated accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad > idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are > pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the > case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive > manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for > "improvements." Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should be > somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even > coordinate a bit on the message. This relates to selecting nominees as > well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions > (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these > parameters. > > > On 8/20/2010 8:45 AM, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger, >> >> I accept Tijani's nomination! >> >> Best, >> Fatimata >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point noted, and >>> nomination of Adam Peake noted. >>> >>> Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a refresher? >>> >>> Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM Bazlur >>> Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla, >>> Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make sure they are willing >>> to speak, expect to be at the meeting, and post their one-paragraph bios? >>> Additional nominations should do the same. >>> >>> Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing those >>> named above. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Ginger Paque, >>>> Who will from Asia ? >>>> I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. >>>> With best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Bazlu >>>> _______________________ >>>> AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR >>>> Chief Executive Officer >>>> Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) >>>> [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social >>>> Council] >>>> & >>>> Head, Community Radio Academy >>>> >>>> House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 >>>> Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh >>>> >>>> Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 >>>> Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 >>>> E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Ginger Paque >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim >>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and >>>>> closing >>>>> >>>>> Noted, McTim, thank you! >>>>> >>>>> Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who >>>>> are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger >>>>> >>>>> On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Fatimata Seye Sylla >> >> > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Fri Aug 20 11:33:02 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:33:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> Message-ID: Ginger, Now that Fatimata accepted the nomination, I attach her short Bio. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ _____ De : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Envoyé : vendredi 20 août 2010 14:23 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fatimata Seye Sylla Cc : Ginger Paque Objet : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. Could you please post a short bio and explain why you would be good for this speaking slot? You might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see below) Best, Ginger Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for CS interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive to what's going on and calibrated accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for "improvements." Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should be somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message. This relates to selecting nominees as well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these parameters. On 8/20/2010 8:45 AM, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: Hello Ginger, I accept Tijani's nomination! Best, Fatimata On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point noted, and nomination of Adam Peake noted. Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a refresher? Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM Bazlur Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla, Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make sure they are willing to speak, expect to be at the meeting, and post their one-paragraph bios? Additional nominations should do the same. Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing those named above. Best, Ginger On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: Dear Ginger Paque , Who will from Asia ? I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. With best regards, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Noted, McTim, thank you! Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. _____ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Fatimata Seye Sylla -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Bio_Fatimata Seye Sylla_En.doc Type: application/msword Size: 21504 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 11:42:40 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:12:40 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> Message-ID: <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 12:12:08 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:12:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] The PROCESS of representation (Selecting a Speaker for IGF) Message-ID: It's been wisely suggested that discussion of process here has been lacking. Representation is a process. In most contexts, representation (to be done well) is a full time professional job -- the job of lawyer, advocate, lobbyist or guardian -- and requires a devotion to the needs and views of those represented. Because of the high calling and difficulty, in most places the right to represent others is forbidden to those who have not opted into a code of ethics, whether that be the more stringent one of lawyers or less stringent ones for lobbyists. In all cases, however, the person or persons represented has the ability to recall, or fire or terminate an agent that is not representing them well. And, the representative is not within their rights to speak their personal views, for then they are not truly representing others. I speak often in favor of affirmative action, but this does not seem applicable very much to the selection of a representative, because their country of origin, race, gender and the like would be a personal characteristic not at all guaranteeing they speak for others of the same characteristics. None of my comments are personal to any nomination here but they do tend to apply to all: We can find corporate voice representatives in essentially any country, race or gender. To use my self as an example, what guarantee do I have that any speaker will indeed speak for me? Surely, my agreement with what's said will exist only in parts - only certain highlights of the speech would I silently cheer as I read or hear it. Yet, if I am a "member" of IGF (as many of you are) the speaker, whoever it is, will be in some sense speaking for me, or for us. No speaker is capable of speaking for this group on this issue given the division of opinion, unless a more intensive process of reconcilation took place, which seems unlikely to happen for reasons of time. And yet, surely the agenda will say something to the effect that this speaker is a member of IGF or perhaps even speaking on behalf of IGF. Even a mere nomination suggests a limited approval by IGF. The speaker is thus faced with a nearly impossible task of speaking for the group (either the IGF and/or the diverse constituencies they are part of) and yet being unable to speak for the group(s). In terms of process, the only thing that can rescue this kind of situation from emptiness is the ability of those "represented" to approve or remove the speaker from their position. An election that creates a form of accountability that is the largest part of the incentive for the speaker to engage in the intensive work necessary to learn the voices of the people involved so they can do the best job possible in representing those voices. Once again, a process perspective takes us back to election as well as a process of education prior to the election, as indispensably necessary both to create a real representation, as well as a form of accountability that helps guarantee both strong efforts on the part of the representative speaker elected as well as a form of recourse if the representative does not live up to the expectations at least of a majority of those represented. In terms of process for selecting a speaker, perhaps the most important qualification in this group (in my mind) would be the amount of time the person is able to put in to grasp all that has been said here on the governance list, and a commitment to give voice to as much of that as fairly as humanly possible. Professional qualifications and prior knowledge may make that preparation more efficient and quicker, but would not substitute for a close reading of what the group has said here on this list. Even if the speaker has latitude to speak from their own point of view, why would IGF send such a person with IGF blessing if there wasn't an abiding interest in everything IGF has to say on the subject of the speaker? Representation is a form of legal agency, which requires the transfer of an "authority" to speak for another individual or group. All such agencies are terminable at will. Except where the members of NGOs can remove via vote their officers or directors, there's no real representation, authority or agency. Even where this power exists, the representation is strictly limited to voluntary members of that NGO or nonprofit. This creates a fatal problem for the inclusivity and democracy of stakeholder-style organizations that, as I've previously stated, prevents their "legitimacy" in a political sense. An election of speaker is possible here though this is not my main intent. The underlying necessity is the most fundamental qualification of a speaker or representative: How faithful will the person be in giving effective voice to the views of this group? Again, I have nobody personally in mind, and intend my comments to apply to the process, and to all, equally. Paul Lehto, J.D. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 12:23:26 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:53:26 -0430 Subject: [governance] The PROCESS of representation (Selecting a Speaker In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4C6EABFE.10304@paque.net> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 12:39:03 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:39:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] The PROCESS of representation (Selecting a Speaker In-Reply-To: <4C6EABFE.10304@paque.net> References: <4C6EABFE.10304@paque.net> Message-ID: My primary purpose below was to connect representation and stakeholderism using the example at hand of selecting a speaker. My intent is to make a point of more lasting relevance than the speaker issue, but as to speakers I note that Ginger perfectly captures the paradoxical task of speaker selection, saying in the same email that "speakers we norminate will speak on their own behalf" and also that they should not only be a "good speaker" but also "represent our general values." The word "represent" here is the exception that swalls the 'rule' of merely "speak on their own behalf." Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/20/10, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Paul and all, > As I understand it, the speakers we nominate will speak on their own behalf, > not 'for' the IGC. We are suggesting possibilities for CS speakers, not > asking that they speak 'for the IGC'. > > We would try to choose speakers who are representative of voices in CS and > the IGC, and Bill makes some good more specific points as well, in reference > to the IGF. I think nominees' bios and background are important, because > they give us an idea if we think they will be a good speaker, and represent > our general values. > > Please correct me if I am wrong. > > Thanks for the input. > Best, > Ginger > > On 8/20/2010 11:42 AM, Paul Lehto wrote: >> >> It's been wisely suggested that discussion of process here has been >> lacking. Representation is a process. In most contexts, representation >> (to be done well) is a full time professional job -- the job of >> lawyer, advocate, lobbyist or guardian -- and requires a devotion to >> the needs and views of those represented. Because of the high calling >> and difficulty, in most places the right to represent others is >> forbidden to those who have not opted into a code of ethics, whether >> that be the more stringent one of lawyers or less stringent ones for >> lobbyists. >> >> In all cases, however, the person or persons represented has the >> ability to recall, or fire or terminate an agent that is not >> representing them well. And, the representative is not within their >> rights to speak their personal views, for then they are not truly >> representing others. >> >> I speak often in favor of affirmative action, but this does not seem >> applicable very much to the selection of a representative, because >> their country of origin, race, gender and the like would be a personal >> characteristic not at all guaranteeing they speak for others of the >> same characteristics. None of my comments are personal to any >> nomination here but they do tend to apply to all: We can find >> corporate voice representatives in essentially any country, race or >> gender. >> >> To use my self as an example, what guarantee do I have that any >> speaker will indeed speak for me? Surely, my agreement with what's >> said will exist only in parts - only certain highlights of the speech >> would I silently cheer as I read or hear it. Yet, if I am a "member" >> of IGF (as many of you are) the speaker, whoever it is, will be in >> some sense speaking for me, or for us. >> >> No speaker is capable of speaking for this group on this issue given >> the division of opinion, unless a more intensive process of >> reconcilation took place, which seems unlikely to happen for reasons >> of time. And yet, surely the agenda will say something to the effect >> that this speaker is a member of IGF or perhaps even speaking on >> behalf of IGF. Even a mere nomination suggests a limited approval by >> IGF. The speaker is thus faced with a nearly impossible task of >> speaking for the group (either the IGF and/or the diverse >> constituencies they are part of) and yet being unable to speak for the >> group(s). >> >> In terms of process, the only thing that can rescue this kind of >> situation from emptiness is the ability of those "represented" to >> approve or remove the speaker from their position. An election that >> creates a form of accountability that is the largest part of the >> incentive for the speaker to engage in the intensive work necessary to >> learn the voices of the people involved so they can do the best job >> possible in representing those voices. >> >> Once again, a process perspective takes us back to election as well as >> a process of education prior to the election, as indispensably >> necessary both to create a real representation, as well as a form of >> accountability that helps guarantee both strong efforts on the part of >> the representative speaker elected as well as a form of recourse if >> the representative does not live up to the expectations at least of a >> majority of those represented. >> >> In terms of process for selecting a speaker, perhaps the most >> important qualification in this group (in my mind) would be the amount >> of time the person is able to put in to grasp all that has been said >> here on the governance list, and a commitment to give voice to as much >> of that as fairly as humanly possible. Professional qualifications >> and prior knowledge may make that preparation more efficient and >> quicker, but would not substitute for a close reading of what the >> group has said here on this list. Even if the speaker has latitude >> to speak from their own point of view, why would IGF send such a >> person with IGF blessing if there wasn't an abiding interest in >> everything IGF has to say on the subject of the speaker? >> >> Representation is a form of legal agency, which requires the transfer >> of an "authority" to speak for another individual or group. All such >> agencies are terminable at will. Except where the members of NGOs can >> remove via vote their officers or directors, there's no real >> representation, authority or agency. Even where this power exists, >> the representation is strictly limited to voluntary members of that >> NGO or nonprofit. This creates a fatal problem for the inclusivity >> and democracy of stakeholder-style organizations that, as I've >> previously stated, prevents their "legitimacy" in a political sense. >> >> An election of speaker is possible here though this is not my main >> intent. The underlying necessity is the most fundamental >> qualification of a speaker or representative: How faithful will the >> person be in giving effective voice to the views of this group? >> Again, I have nobody personally in mind, and intend my comments to >> apply to the process, and to all, equally. >> >> Paul Lehto, J.D. >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Fri Aug 20 13:58:11 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:58:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> An excellent prospect! Carlton Samuels From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:43 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: 'Ginger Paque'; 'Fatimata Seye Sylla' Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing I am pasting Fatimata's short Bio here, for those who may not be able to receive the attachment: Fatimata Seye Sylla, Senegal (Africa) Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer Science from IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business Administration from CESAG, Dakar, the regional management school for Africa. After several years of experience in the field of ICT for development in Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the USAID/EDB project, in charge of the integration of ICTs in teaching/learning practices in Middle Schools for quality education in Senegal. Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in the fields of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and democracy and Internet Governance. She is a founder member of several associations (ISOC Senegal, OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, REGENTIC, Bokk Jang). She was nominated member of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also elected President of the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) in 2009. Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She also participated in all the IGF editions at the national, regional and international levels. On 8/20/2010 11:03 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Ginger, Now that Fatimata accepted the nomination, I attach her short Bio. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________ De : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Envoyé : vendredi 20 août 2010 14:23 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fatimata Seye Sylla Cc : Ginger Paque Objet : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. Could you please post a short bio and explain why you would be good for this speaking slot? You might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see below) Best, Ginger Just a small suggestion-with whether and in what form the IGF will be renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for CS interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive to what's going on and calibrated accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for "improvements." Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should be somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message. This relates to selecting nominees as well-consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these parameters. On 8/20/2010 8:45 AM, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: Hello Ginger, I accept Tijani's nomination! Best, Fatimata On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point noted, and nomination of Adam Peake noted. Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a refresher? Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM Bazlur Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla, Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make sure they are willing to speak, expect to be at the meeting, and post their one-paragraph bios? Additional nominations should do the same. Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing those named above. Best, Ginger On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: Dear Ginger Paque, Who will from Asia ? I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. With best regards, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Noted, McTim, thank you! Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Fatimata Seye Sylla -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Fri Aug 20 17:04:23 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:04:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Call for Statements of Interests for Candidatesfor Post of ICANN Board Seat Extended to September 6, 2010 Message-ID: <4C6EEDD7.6050404@gih.com> All: this could be of interest here - it is not too late to apply. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Sujet: ICANN News Alert -- Call for Statements of Interests for Candidates for Post of ICANN Board Seat Extended to September 6, 2010 Date : Fri, 20 Aug 2010 15:02:05 -0400 De : ICANN News Alert Pour : ocl at gih.com ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20aug10-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Call for Statements of Interests for Candidates for Post of ICANN Board Seat Extended to September 6, 2010 20 August 2010 * *The Call for Statements of Interest (SOIs) for Candidates for the Post of ICANN Board Seat has been extended to September 6. This Call for SOIs is part of the new process through which the user community within ICANN will appoint one voting member of the ICANN Board. While acting in a personal capacity as a member of the ICANN Board, this member must be able to reflect the users' point of view and interests in the debate and decision making undertaken within the ICANN framework. In seeking candidates for this post, ICANN's At-Large Community is looking for an individual with a broad international perspective and a background in Internet users' interests, consumer policy and/or civil society worldwide. *Information about the At-Large Community:* "At-Large" is the name of the community of individual Internet users involved in ICANN's policy development process. It currently consists of over 120 active At-Large organizations (called "At-Large structures" or "ALSes"), representing the opinions of the global community of Internet users. At-Large provides a means through which individual end users of the Internet worldwide can participate in the matters on which ICANN works, such as: * Guidance on how to run Internationalized Domain Names (IDN); * How to introduce new gTLDs (such as .info, .name and .museum); and * How to implement a stable and fair transition from IPv4 to the next Internet addresses generation, IPv6. The At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee (BCEC) now calls for Statements of Interest (SOIs). For more information regarding the BCEC, including member details, please see the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee Web page (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_board_candidate_evaluation_committee). *How to apply for consideration:* To apply, please complete and submit the Statement of Interest (SOI) available on-line at https://www.bigpulse.com/m9918/intro. You can also review it as a PDF document in English [PDF, 472 KB], French [PDF, 507 KB] and Spanish [PDF, 460 KB]. *The form can be submitted online or printed* and either: * Posted to At-Large Director Applications, ICANN, c/o Heidi Ullrich, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 320, Marina del Rey, California 90292, USA; or * Faxed to +1 310 823 8649 +1 310 823 8649 . *To be considered, all SOIs must be:* * Completed and submitted in English; and * *Received by September 6, 2010, at 23:59 UTC.* Please feel free to e-mail the BCEC with any questions regarding SOIs or the application process at BCEC-Request at icann.org . The BCEC will respond to all inquiries. Additional information is available on the At-Large Director Candidate 2010 workspace . ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine * -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Fri Aug 20 19:55:14 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 16:55:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 17 Aug 2010, at 19:26, parminder wrote: > > Avri > > On Wednesday 18 August 2010 02:55 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> in my very personal opinion. >> >> a. >> >> (yes, my role in the IGF may prejudice my outlook and commitment to the model. >> but i am sure i would not have the role i do if i was not a true believer) >> >> > > True believer in MSism as a policy discussing model or a policy making model ! :) All from a personal point of view But in terms using a multistakeholder model I think you start with discussion and in time policy making can happen. i do not say that all implementations of the multistakeholder model will work the same, or that all can lead to concrete output. But if the participants want that to be the case, it can be the case. > > And if the IGF is ever going to be able to move anyway closer to policy making, in fact even to meaningfully input into global IG policy making, how and when ?? This is not for me to say. or rather i don't know. But i believe it could if that is what was wanted. And I would argue that it is not true that there are no outputs, though it is true that is does not have the degree of output some would want to see. for example: this year the Secretariat will publish a volume on the Good Practices that have been described over the years, and plans to introduce a online system that will allow for further good practices to be input. This is, to my mind, an output. Is it all the IGC would like to see? I am sure not.. But we do not know how the IGF will evolve, but the last years have shown that if it is allowed to continue, it will continue to evolve. > I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of the IGF (the latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that IGF gives out 'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does). That is one decision at one point in time. I remember when critical internet resources was a taboo subject. Things change as the other stakeholder groups become convinced it should. Perhaps it will take some time to get to all of IGC goals for the IGF. then again it is the IGC that is in the forefront on so many ideas, so it is a bit utopian to expect that every advanced notion that IGC has will immediately be implemented in the IGF. But as far as I can tell, more of them are included in some form or other, as time goes on. So I beleive it is important to persist in support and furtherance of the multistakeholder model. > > In fact, some of those who are considered antagonist to MSism - like developing country governments, are the ones who have, and still are, advocating, some more clear and meaningful outcomes from the MS forum of the IGF. > > Shedding of any light on this paradox will be highly appreciated. I do not see the paradox. I see a system, a very young system, that is still evolving. Perhaps the paradox you see is just the ontogeny of a global system. I see IGC having reached some of it goals in IGF, and see it being frustrated at not having achieved others. I would argue that without a multistakeholder IGF, we would not have gotten as far in any of the policy areas as we have. And yes, there is a long ways to go yet. What else is new? > > That could help us in deciding whether MSism is a model for making (or helping make) policy, or of obstructing progressive policy making possibilities. The IGF is not the only place where the experiment on multistakeholder model is occurring. It is also occurring in ICANN and elsewhere. And while I will agree with anyone who says there is a long way to go in ICANN with deployment of a full multistakeholder system i believe it is making slow progress in that direction. It is a evolutionary process, and as with all evolutionary processes it is hard to see the mechanisms and see the proof. As with other evolutionary processes, it is easy to see why people sometimes find it hard to accept that a cultural system is evolving. But looking at the step wise refinements and improvements, sometime albeit through a microscope, is what convinces me that it is a model for today - for the Internet, that works. a. > > 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 20:28:33 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 05:28:33 +0500 Subject: [governance] Vilnius Hotel Suggestions Message-ID: Hi, I was planning and exploring possible accommodation options for Vilnius next month. I wanted to request those participating that what what options have they chosen and what rates have been made available to them? Definitely cost is an issue! These responses will also be helpful for other participants from developing country regions! Kindly share: Hotel Name: Rates: Website address for booking (if possible) -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Fri Aug 20 22:14:15 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:14:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ism or not Ism ? In-Reply-To: <4C6E5252.4030405@itforchange.net> References: <4C6A8A60.7070304@itforchange.net> <4C6E5252.4030405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Paul, Parminder et al. It's true that governments increasingly indulge in a "two-level game" between the democratic institutions (where applicable) and expectations of their domestic politics and global policymaking, possibly through MS processes. Agree, this is a threat to democracy. I'd hope that the involvement of CS in global MS processes is a first step for containing that threat, and CS may lead further mobilization at national level if need be. While the list of issues eligible for a global policy agenda will keep growing longer, we certainly must not associate ourselves with discounting the exercise of national democracy on those issues -- short of a global one (see below). You Parminder are certainly making broader points than I. But while reading I couldn't help but feel that some further clarity may be needed on both mines and yours. I was not trying to build a model or justify one (not even suggesting that the one being experimented with global IG issues is fully satisfying). I'm certainly not justifying a model of governance where "big business has a veto." By direct participation (by the business sector), I did not not mean necessarily through vote or veto. The fact that they can provide their views and inputs which are taken into account by policymakers is enough participation in my opinion. I'd maintain the main point I was making without any distinction between capitalist, industrialized, developed nations on the one hand and the rest on the other. In any polity where who gets to rule is a decision collectively made by individual citizens, the rulers will pay a great deal of attention to the conditions that will give more opportunities to the citizenry, or make them perceive they are or will be better off. If you are in a capitalistic regime, you'll probably be looking at the indicators of GDP, employment, variations in individual income, etc. But whatever the economic regime you choose, what the people considers instrumental to its well-being will have that much of weight in the rulers' decision-making, at least mostly in the democratic model you're advocating for (and please in this last sentence, think of economy not in terms of the current global financial corporations, but in terms of the law of the household, as Aristotle would have it). So I was merely describing a dynamic, giving my take on its possible rationale, and maybe hinting to some possible tactics for CS to weigh in more effectively. Business have obviously had their imprint on public policy before the MS processes of the day. ITU (which ironically is now seen in some quarters as the intergovernmental evil) has had the business sector strongly represented in some of their forums, and presidents making decisions of global import have had them on their advisory teams, etc. long before the terms & practice of global governance and MS surface in politics. If anything, it might well be for MS-ism that your and my voices have some chance to be heard today in these policymaking processes (again, I'm not quite yet congratulating myself over its achievements). I understand your contending that the onus should be on those who want to move towards a "post-democratic" model to justify why we should move away from the democratic model. Now, I'm not sure whether you're not assuming too quickly that we all know what a "global democratic polity" looks like and accept the existence, or even possible emergence in any foreseeable future, of such thing. It's not because the democratic model is sound and legitimate at national level that that is automatically the case at global level. For as you know legitimacy may largely depend on operational/ implementation modalities. What would the global democracy function - on an issue by issue basis with a call to only natural individuals across the globe to take a vote? Or will it be limited to natural individuals' attendance or membership in structures such as IGC, IGF, etc.? Transnational NGOs may use the democratic model to make decisions and elect their bodies, but that does not make a global polity. So I'm not sure it's all that clear to everyone as you might think (and my apologies to the group if those questions have already been resolved in one of those past rounds of discussions I might have missed). Again, I agree with you that a lot remains to be improved with MS and the IGF and even with the IGC. But I don't see anywhere the possibility of a global constitution defining the global citizen and her civil rights, on the basis of which one can prescribe who's allowed to participate and who's not. So in the mean time, domestic democracy must also be strengthened while we're pursuing these global MS experiments; this should not be a zero-sum game. We may grow more activists in pushing back or countering the weight of a stakeholder we think is unduly excessive (and maybe that's what you're trying to do here), but we really have no basis to decide de jure that they should NOT participate. Our main problem may be trivial after all: This takes a heck of time! Mawaki On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 6:00 AM, parminder wrote: > Mawaki, and all > > I pick two important issues from Mawaki's email, but the ideas being > responded to are from the broader discussion here. > > First is about expertise versus participation. These two ideas and concepts > should be kept clearly seperate. Even a despotic king requires expertise to > rule, but participation is about democratisation. Using the logic of need > for expertise to push for a new post-democratic 'participation model' should > be avoided, and in fact is quite dangerous. Such meritocratic / technocratic > claims to 'higher level of participation' are one of the main reasons/ > logics behind the current challenges to democratic forms in IG (because of > its technical roots), including as expressed often in the present thread of > discussion. > > Second, the issue of the need for thriving economy. US became a thriving > economy, and more recently China has, without giving a 'formal' role to big > business, or non-human legal entities, in policy making. Why would such > roles suddenly now be needed to maintain or achieve a thriving economy? This > fear of losing out economically is one of the main ones that is put in the > minds of developing countries to force them to yield policy spaces to global > digital mega-corps. But that is simply extortion-ism by the more powerful, > and we need to confront it rather that use it our analyses to justify new > governance models. > > So, the simple question is what is so new now that we need to move away from > democratic models to post-democratic ones, especially at the global level? > The burden is on those who advocate these new models to show why they are > needed, how they will work, and whose interests they will serve. And I have > heard rather limited stuff, if any, on these key points. > > Meanwhile, I have a theory why these post-democratic models have  suddenly > become so 'popular' at the global levels, which I open up to being > contested. > > One. As the world becomes one economically, and also increasingly drawn > closer at social and cultural levels, there is of course the concomitant > need for some kind of an effective global polity. The dominant powers, > chiefly the developed countries, are however mortally afraid what a global > polity with a democratic basis will mean. A democratic form of polity will > always tend towards certain degree of greater eqaulisation, egalitarianism; > that is the nature of democracy. It is obvious that this simply does not > suit their interests. Proposing post democratic model, in the name of > greater opening up, where big business has a veto is clearly very convenient > (these businesses are largely developed country based, but even developing > country big business has a strong confluence of interest with them, > explanation of which is given in the next point) . That is what global > multistakeholder model of governance is really about. > > Second reason. There is a rising middle class in what have been called > 'emerging economies', but also in not so emerging ones. whose social and > cultural, and increasingly economic, and thus political, aspirations are in > tune with the dominant classes in the west/ north. This convergence of > political interests of rather vast groups across the global is one of the > most important transglobal phenomenon today, which I think has not been > given the attention it deserves. These transglobal links follow the pathways > and networks of economic globalisation  but as a phenomenon are different > and perhaps larger than economic globalisation. (Wolfgang, yes, the network > phenomenon is quite strong today, but it is much more complex and non-linear > that as you described it, especially in its strong exclusionary tendencies.) > > This new transglobal dominant class has a strong commonality of interests, > and is in the same way very wary of a global democratic polity as the > developed countires (These rising middle classes are indeed finding it a > happy situation that the national polities no longer can afford much social > welfare expenditure and much redistribution because of the fear of global > capital fleeing; they certainly do not want a global polity to reinstate > such democratic/ welfarist norms globally, and therefrom nationally.) > > In such a situation, I understand that the role of a progressive global > civil society is to counter these anti-democratic developments, rather then > flow in their chimeric allurements and deviously built false promises, much > less actually contribute to building, the discourse and justifications for > these post-democratic models. > > Unfortunately, excuse me to say so, much of civil society, especially in the > IG arena has not stood up to the challenge of resisting the dominant forces > and their plans, and building alternatives that bespeak the interests of > those who are systematically being left out. It often more closely > represents the viewpoints and the interests this emergent trans-global > middle class. One can give many instances of it but this is already a long > email and so i'll stop here :). > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday 18 August 2010 08:47 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> In the same time, it is precisely because MS processes have (so far) >> applied for "gathering perspectives around specialized issues" that I >> think inevitably you'll have to accept the direct participation of >> 'non-natural' or legal entities as opposed to natural individuals and >> citizens. For the point then is precisely to get the most informed >> advice possible, irrespective of the source. >> >> So (returning to the broader question) the problem is less one of >> 'who's who' and 'who is or is not a legitimate participant' and more >> one of process. >> >> As a reminder, multistakeholder (sure, not the best word one can dream >> of) says *multi*-stakeholder, not *tri*-stakeholder. At this time, >> many participants - probably most - seem to go along with the idea >> that there are three main stakeholder groups but obviously we know >> that doesn't necessarily have to be, and will probably not always be, >> that way. I believe things are and should be more fluid than when we >> try to categorize them with fuzzy labels. >> >> First, ultimate authority to make public policy lies with the >> government, still at this point. And government will always have a >> competitive advantage on that front as long as only it has the >> authority to enforce the law. So how do we get from here to full, or >> nearly full, multistakeholder policymaking? As things stand, it will >> obviously depend on how able the other groups are to weigh on >> governments. >> >> Second, private business and corporations are crucial for a nation's >> economical health by creating wealth and employment. Whether we like >> it or not, any democratic government would rather preside over a >> thriving and innovative economy (and for their nation first, before >> they worry about the global, unless the national largely depends on >> the global). So governments have obvious good reasons to listen and >> support private business interests while making policy. >> >> Third: What is civil society's value proposition? It is up to CS -- >> and all remaining part of the *multi-* -- to make its case and choose >> its strategies. >> >> I'm not sure what people mean when they talk about full >> multistakeholder (not just process or participation but actual) >> policymaking, or CS being on "equal footing" with the government. I >> don't know whether that implies that we're fighting or should be >> fighting for up to a seat around the signing table with the signature >> of CS delegates alongside those of government on the decision >> documents. >> >> Also, it seems vain to me that anyone spend energy arguing that CS is >> or should be the one most legitimate party whose views governments >> should take into account over others' while making decisions. >> >> But I suspect possible paths to ensure decision outcomes are as >> multistakeholder as possible would require CS talking to/ petitioning/ >> lobbying/ pressuring/ etc. not only governments, but also private >> business and any other possible parties. To the extent that those >> other parties are not by themselves ready to fully embrace CS views, >> the onus will be on CS to show governments how doing away with CS >> views might be damaging to the polity and to them, and business how >> supporting CS inputs (at least some of them) might be good for their >> long term interests (if only because CS might expose their >> anti-citizen behaviors otherwise), etc. >> >> To start -- not sure if this has already been done, as I've had my >> hiatus with these discussion, but...-- this WSIS-generated CS >> coalition would already make history if it only manages to come up >> with clearly defined formative principles with regard to what 'public >> interest' might be when it comes to policymaking towards information >> society, and further principles or rules that should be observed to >> ensure that public interest and CS basic values be included in any >> policymaking process and decision. Just something parsimonious, >> fundamental, without verbiage, as one would do for a constitutional >> preamble or bill of... norms, so to speak. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:10 AM, parminder >>  wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> My main problem with the ism is as follows. 'Multistakeholder >>> participation' >>> has for long been a valid concept in democratic practice, especially in >>> terms of gathering perspectives around specialized issues ( and >>>  generally >>> not so much in deciding larger/ broader/ overall public interest issues >>> where 'public interest' actors are mostly engaged)), and works clearly >>> within, and in subordination to, traditional (representative) democratic >>> institution and political processes. >>> >>> >> >> ........... >> >>  What is clearly >> >>> >>> different in any such democratic global process/ institution vis a vis >>> multistakeholderism is that in the former only natural human beings and >>> their natural collectives are recognized entities with rights and >>> equality, >>> and legal entities like corporates are not accepted to be at the same >>> level. >>> MSism however tends to do 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 >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chad at apc.org Fri Aug 20 22:53:27 2010 From: chad at apc.org (Chad Lubelsky) Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 22:53:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Vilnius Hotel Suggestions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0BD979DA-59A2-45B2-B9A5-2340810976F9@apc.org> Hi Fouad, The APC delegation is staying at the Algirdas Hotel - http://www.algirdashotel.lt/en/ . The rate is 78 Euro for a single and 96 for a double. I'm sorry to say that I am pretty sure they are sold out. It's worth sending an email though since even if they don't have any space they have been extremely helpful and might be able to help you find something else. Best of luck! Chad On 20-Aug-10, at 8:28 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Hi, > > I was planning and exploring possible accommodation options for > Vilnius next month. I wanted to request those participating that what > what options have they chosen and what rates have been made available > to them? Definitely cost is an issue! These responses will also be > helpful for other participants from developing country regions! > > Kindly share: > > Hotel Name: > > Rates: > > Website address for booking (if possible) > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ---- Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator Association for Progressive Communications Montreal, Canada chad at apc.org - +1 514 603 3382 --- APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Aug 21 03:10:30 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:10:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Parminder: I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of the IGF (the latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that IGF gives out 'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does). Wolfgang: It was me who proposed in the first MAG meeting after Athens (February 2007) to "invented" a new category of "outcome" which has not the political bagagae of a "recommendation" in the UN context. A"recommendation" is a negotiated text and you need a "drafting group" wehre all parties are represented in a balanced way. If you would start within a four day meeting with "negotiations" you unavoidably destroy any type of discussion. Parties will start to fight there there "fixed position" is reflected in the final document and the struggle goes around language which is so general that all parties feel that they have won. The formula "enhanced cooperation" is a very god example. With other words: You have an "outcome" but it is meaningless. To avoid this and to move forward to the discussion of substance you have to avoid such a type of negotiations where "word smithing" is more important than the issue. I understand that people want to take something home after a meeting. And they are not satisfied if they have only the Chairman´s summary and the thousands of pages of the transcripts (which are nevertheless importanten) Against this background I proposed in the MAG 1. to produce readable proceedings in form of an "IGF book" what you can take home (free of charge), distribute to friends and put on your bookshelf (and read again if needed) and 2. to introduce as a new (undefined) category the formulaiton of "messages" as a light weight outcome from a discussion and as a visible "output" from the meeting. My idea with the message was (and is) that each convenor/raporteur of a plenary or workshop formlates at the end of the session one or two (or three as a maximm) key conclusions and summarizes this in form of short messages. This is normally the case in each meeting but so far there is no mechanism in place to channel this type of conclusions to a audience beyond the peole sitting in the rom. These conclusions can be controversial messages (one party said so and another party said so) but it has to be concrete, precise, cover a key aspect and has to be also short (not longer than three lines/similar to the length restrictions you know from twitter). But the most important point is it would a non-negotiated text. No drafting group needed. If you have 80 workshops and plenaries you will get around 160 messages from 80 perople which avoids that one party overtake or capture the formulation of the messages. Certainly this will enhance the responsiblity of the raporteur (and the procedure to nominate a rapporteur). I remember very well the discussion in the MAG in February and May 2007. The Brazilians wanted to have something like a "Rio de Janeiro IGF Declaration". Bilcaho, the Brazilian governmental representative, was excited in the beginning to have "IGF Messages from Rio de Janeiro". But for a number of reasons, it did not work for Rio (and not for the following IGFs). When we launched EURODIG, it was easier to convince the core team to think about "messages" as an alternative to "recommendations". And it workd in Strasbourg in 2008, where "Messages from Strasbourg" where produced "bottom up" and the core team just made some final polishment but did not change the substance of the messages which came from the rapporteurs of the various sessions. The same happend with the "EURODIG Geneva Messages from 2009" and now with the "2010 EURODIG Madrid Messages". The same thing happend with the German IGF where we produced a one page "IGF-D Messages from Berlin" out of four sessions. Why I go back to the history? The lesson here is that nothing will happen when you introduce it for the first time. If something is new, it takes time that others are convinced. And as Avri has pointed out, it is an evolutionary process which evolves bottom up. I am convinced that the idea of "messages" - if they continue to proof to be a useful outcome from regional and national IGFs - will be also attractive - sooner or later - for the global IGF. Best wishes 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From karl at cavebear.com Sat Aug 21 04:38:39 2010 From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 01:38:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C6F908F.1000407@cavebear.com> On 08/21/2010 12:10 AM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG > policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call > themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of > the IGF (the latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that > IGF gives out 'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does). Much of what I see happening here is debate on process. Might I suggest a few initiatives on substantive matters - it would be hard for others to dismiss those. For example, we recognize that the net is a collection of rather independent carriers. Today there is no easy way for an average user (or his/her agent or local provider) to go out to obtain assurances (not guarantees) of end-to-end service. I've long thought that one thing we need on the net is some sort of clearing-house function to which a person or entity that needs some sort of end-to-end service can go to arrange such things. This would be an entirely non-technical function. I am assuming, perhaps too hopefully, that if such an organ were created that it would evolve, much as the coffee houses of London evolved centuries ago into things like Lloyds of London. Such an effort, if properly couched, could also be a nice olive branch to groups (such as NANOG) that tend to look askance at internet governance. Another thing - We've talked a lot over the last few days about net neutrality. It is my sense that when the fur stops flying that we will be in a regime in which there is some sort of non-discriminatory base carriage of packets and tiers of higher grade (and higher cost) service. But nobody has set down what those service levels might be, either in terms of what a local, edge ISP would have to deliver, or what might be required end-to-end across a sequence of providers. For example, a base level service might have characteristics such as: - No discrimination on packet size, content, or IP address source or destination. - Best effort, with routers limited to certain defined queue policies, such as weighted or unweighted fair queueing, tail drop, various forms of RED. - Delay not to exceed N milliseconds (on some sort of average) with jitter not to exceed M milliseconds (with some defined algorithm to express jitter). - Path MTU of at least 1500 bytes. etc etc. A higher level (which might be included in the baseline) would further constrain delay and/or jitter to better support VoIP. There could be defined levels of non-neutrality, such as the preference for DNS packets that I mentioned the other day. If these service levels and definitions were created consumers (and larger entities) could engage in real discussions with providers about what is actually being provided. And providers would understand what they need to deliver. The ITU has some work, G.1050, to characterize internet packet carriage behaviour. Although I have some problems with some of the burst algorithms used in that specification, I believe that G.1050 perhaps could be used as a baseline for discussion. Nobody else in the constellation of internet governance actors is doing this sort of thing - yet is seems to me that that kind of work would be rather useful to users and providers. Were the IGF to pick up the baton and run with it the other "stakeholders" would have no grounds to complain and could only try to catch up. Moreover, I believe that by focusing for a while on more technical matters that the emotional differences would be reduced it would be relatively easy to make visible progress. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 21 06:36:37 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 12:36:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> At 17:28 19/08/2010, Michael Gurstein wrote: >Jefsey, > >While your note below seems to be making some useful points it >demonstrates to my mind precisely one of the major hesitations I >have concerning shifting away from existing approaches to >democracy/the governance of governance into any of the alternatives >currently being discussed in forums such as this one, especially >where the main argument is that somehow the technology is forcing >these changes upon us. > >We are having a discussion on quite fundamental issues of very broad >significance and relevance and in the midst of this we are bombarded >with technical jargon, references to highly specialized and even >arcane areas of expertise and documentation, and undefined acronyms >and neologisms and we are expected that somehow we are to take this >seriously as arguments of more general import. (Or what would be >even worse, nod sagely as though we understood and passed these >along as useful contributions.) > >If you can translate what you have below into any of the official >languages of the UN it would I think be a useful place to begin. Dear Michael, I am sorry but this is precisely what I did. None of the words I used it technical. They either belong to common language, to WSIS declarations, or to the desired interfacing between users and engineers and they are then introduced. The real issue we have, IMHO, is that we refuse to use our own words in the meaning we defined and try to keep using outdated perceptions we consensually declared as obsolete years ago. re-Doing Geneva/Tunis preparations again and again. I have the same problem with the technical community where some hate me and others support me. I am the facilitator of the iucg at ietf.org mailing list (Internet Users Contributing Group). A place for users to discuss this same problem: how to make engineers understand us (something they do want, but then we are to do our home work and use their precise terms because they means something precise, as much as our own precise terms). What I observe is that none of the so called CS attends that list. Hence my question what is CS in the opinion of the people of this list? Why is CS not supporting the WSIS recommendations? Why is this list not refering to the IGF mission to deal with the emergences of the Internet and Information Society? Why is not using the words of the WSIS its people seem to ignore? Is it a place to vote about votes, to talk, to work, to build, to protect people? Now, your concern irt. technology is something you share in common to the CS/Gov/mostPrivate because the WSIS failed to see and document it. The technology IS forcing the changes upon you, period. The fault of the WSIS was to not identify the Adminance mechanisms and explain how Governance should participate in order to force the people's specifications on the technology. This is what the IUCG tries to introduced aside of the IAB (IETF Internet Architecture Board) which up to now has assumed the plannification of the technology evolution, without any user/society/gov control while it is sponsored by the private sector. Here is what IAB says (RFC 3869) on the matter: * "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." (NB. This is what ISOC now SELL!!! infuence on the technology to its platinum sponsors) * "The IAB believes that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward." This was six years ago. CS, Govs and Tunis failed to answer that. They said: "Google", so many joined Google. The only existing answer I know off is the IUCG where self-sustained non-commercials lead users carry research and standardisation action towards a people's internet (cf. "people centric - à caratère humain - centrada en la personna" (WSIS)). Who knows on this list that they have blocked cultural filtering and changed the very concept of the internet, introducing the principle of subsidiarity in its archtitecture and are fighting hard for the IETF to understand the implications of what they have consensually approved and now published. I am afraid that a few people meeting on a mailing list or in a few fora, even once a year paid by UN, ICANN, etc, having their own outdated view of effective forces (I am sorry to be harsh but I do think it is true - look at the way ALAC is not considered at ICANN, and global members despised at ISOC, not even being represented at the BoT) can achieve much. Where are your guns? How do you want to impose anything to people who do have guns, billions of dollars, the technology, paying consumers and spend their time at social engineering? There is only one source of power they do not have: technical innovation supported by users adhesion. Since you disregard technical issues, any form of social advancement, and users/people/political/consumer/cultural organizations, I do not really see what you may hope except to die for the glory as did the GA, IDNO, icannatlarge, ALAC. Do you realise that your Travel expenses to IGF meetings only would permit us to drastically change the Internet technology and make it fit what you try to vote for. Sorry to be upset, but sometimes it does some good and may help :-) This is my freedom of technical speach ! Best jfc > >Tks, > >Mike >-----Original Message----- >From: jefsey [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] >Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:57 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; >governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism > >At 05:05 19/08/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>I haven't been participating in this discussion, because I don't >>want to stick too much of an oar in while I'm co-coordinator, but >>I've been avidly reading and there have been many pearls of wisdom >>exchanged. I'll just pipe up briefly here to add one short +1 to >>this, and to make a couple of related remarks. > >Interesting debate. However, I do not want to harp on that too >much, but democracy seems to be an outdated concept that is related >to a period of prevalent dialogue calling for an elected chain of >dialogue from bottom to top. With the demographic growth, and its >implied direct horizontal relational consequences, we entered a >polylogue period (people talking to everyone on behalf of everyone), >and to facilitate this polylogue we created the Internet. This is >new, and we are learning from experience as to what polycracy may >mean and how one "governs", together with each other, a 7++ billion >multicolor, multicultural, multilingual, multifaith, etc. States UN, >in turn resulting from and dependent on a developing set of new technologies. > >The WSIS offered a panel of different, and probably prophetic, insights: > >- individual people centrism > >- dynamic coalitions: everyone can join/quit them to promote/defend a position > >- enhanced cooperations (to be worked on) to carry common tasks - >where the current IESOCANN failure is, due to the still prevailing >ICANN "Class IN" centrism make-believe. However, the enhanced >cooperation mechanism is something that we will probably have to >consider soon enough due to the principle of subsidiarity becoming >the third founding principle (through the IDNA2008 illustration) of >the Internet architecture (after the principle of adaptability as a >result of the principle of permanent change - RFC 1958; and the >principle of simplicity - RFC 3439). > >- multistakeholderism. However, in mainly quoting the governance >regalian space, civil society, private sector, and international >bodies, they overlooked three key missing stakeholder classes: >money, users, and adminance. > >--- Adminance is what provides its technical soil to Governance >(standards, operations, structures, training, maintenance, etc.). >--- Users are the people who are the center of the whole thing (far >away from CS, which deals with principles, while Users deal with reality). >--- Money is still currently a decimal non-digital transaction >memory tool that is devastated by the emergence of the digital >ecosystem and is totally out of tune with it, and with the emerging >polycracy (hence the current financial crisis and corruption wave >[Russia: 50% of the GNP]). > >- the IGF decision making tool. Certainly the least understood >proposition to date. While the main concept is still "coordinated >cooperation" (by US, ICANN, UN...), the IGF is NOT a place for >coordination (with voted motions influenced by lobbies and >sponsors), but rather a place for "concertation" (French/EU >meaning), i.e. where everyone can come to a better, mutually >informed, personal decision. > >In such a system, stability can only proceed from what Buckminster >Fuller called "tensegrity" (integrity based on a balance between >tension and compression components).,This is probably a notion that >we should explore better as a multilateral continuation of the >East/West Cold War coexistence and further US globalization attempt. > >jfc > > >>I agree that civil society must promote the adoption of a framework >>for further democratising global governance (for which >>"multistakeholderism" is just a convenient and slightly inaccurate >>shorthand), beyond the Internet governance regime, in which it is >>really just a test-bed. >> >>Agreeing with Wolfgang, and disagreeing slightly with Parminder, >>for me the inclusion of the three stakeholder groups in >>multi-stakeholder structures has never been about increasing the >>power of the private sector, but on the contary, balancing it. The >>private sector already has the ear of governments, and by promoting >>multistakeholderism we ask nothing more than for the same privilege. >> >>In Internet governance, we already have a good basic starting point >>for such a framework in the WSIS process criteria and the IGF's >>(unfulfilled) mandate to assess the performance of Internet >>governance institutions against these criteria. Beyond that, the >>framework is being taken forward by efforts like the UNECE/CoE/APC >>Code of Good Practice on information, participation and >>transparency in Internet governance (already referred to in this >>thread, http://www.intgovcode.org/). >> >>Other regimes are very far behind. I have just written a paper in >>which I argue for the development of global principles for >>governance of the global regime on intellectual property, in view >>of the threat of ACTA, whose negotiators not only flout basic >>principles of democratic global governance, but also feign >>ignorance that they are doing so. One of our workshops >>(Parminder's) will deal with this in detail too. >> >>My fear, though, is that whilst Internet governance is, as I've >>said, just a test-bed for multistakeholderism, if it doesn't soon >>prove its value then it will not only have been born there but will >>die there as well, and end up with no more currency in global >>governance discourse than communism or anarchism. >> >>In this respect I respectfully can't agree with Ginger (another >>reason I'm piping up now!) about the need to constrain the IGF from >>producing "results". The fears about "the pressure of negotiations >>or the need for an agreed-upon end 'result'", whilst not unfounded, >>should be systematically confronted and addressed rather than >>fatalistically accepted. >> >>It is more important that multi-stakeholderism works (and for us, >>not just for the incumbent powers) rather than that it doesn't rock >>the boat. And by "works", we mean that we need to have an >>appreciable impact on shaping actual public policy decisions at a >>global level. At the moment, we quite simply don't (research >>presented at last year's workshop on "Identifying the Impact" >>demonstrated this, and the UNSG's recent remarks also acknowledge it). >> >>In fact there are many ways in which the power of governments and >>other powerful actors to screw up the process can be defused. I've >>written about these ad nauseum and I don't intend to do so again >>here, but read again the summary I wrote for the IGP for a >>refresher if you are interested ( >>http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). >> >>With that out of the way, I'll re-lurk and leave you all to >>continue these very productive and interesting discussions. > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 21 07:52:59 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:22:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] net neutrality Message-ID: <4C6FBE1B.8070606@itforchange.net> See here new pay per site plans for Internet mobile in India http://www.tatadocomo.com/pps-tariff-plans.aspx http://www.tata.com/article.aspx?artid=I+qapklYkjQ= Another Indian telecom, Tata DoCoMo has announced a select boutique of email and social networking sites for about a dollar a month. (The public Internet is of course for a much higher price.) It is obvious that net neutrality is already dead on the wireless internet, as we still argue about definitions and technical intricacies. The fact that is simple and clearly understood by anyone is - IGC's website, for instance, is much more expensive to reach and browse than Facebook, Twitter and Gmail put together. That is the problem, i.e. if we are indeed inclined to see any problem there. And if we see here the death of what was the most important promise of the Internet - that of pulling all of us - or at least all of our content - to the same starting point on the Internet. Wonder why we keep insisting the problem is much more complex, or technical etc. I think it is simple and clear as day light. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 21 08:25:22 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 17:55:22 +0530 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C6FBE1B.8070606@itforchange.net> References: <4C6FBE1B.8070606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4C6FC5B2.7080105@itforchange.net> >Wonder why we keep insisting the problem is much more complex, or technical etc. I think it is simple and clear as day >light. Especially, if we are inclined to see the Internet as more than a space for a competitive market (though NN issue has enough problems vis a vis Internet as a competitive market place) as a democratic public sphere and a space for exercising global citizenship. I hear so many voices here argue to the effect that there need be nothing surprising, or wrong, if the Internet takes the contours of power - of dominaiton and subordinaiton - as experienced in the 'real' world. What I dont understand is that why just because we could not live in a compact of equality in the offline world, we should not strive to live in a compact of equality over and vis a vis the Internet (at least to the extent we can, at least to try, as progressive civil society). That is the ideological basis for network neutrality or what may be called as 'network equality'. To choose one side or the other is quite an ideological position. Beyond a point there is not much to argue about here, one has to choose one side or the other, we as a group may have to choose one side or the other. And fight for however close we can reach to the ideal. Parminder On Saturday 21 August 2010 05:22 PM, parminder wrote: > > See here new pay per site plans for Internet mobile in India > > http://www.tatadocomo.com/pps-tariff-plans.aspx > > http://www.tata.com/article.aspx?artid=I+qapklYkjQ= > > > Another Indian telecom, Tata DoCoMo has announced a select boutique of > email and social networking sites for about a dollar a month. (The > public Internet is of course for a much higher price.) It is obvious > that net neutrality is already dead on the wireless internet, as we > still argue about definitions and technical intricacies. The fact that > is simple and clearly understood by anyone is - IGC's website, for > instance, is much more expensive to reach and browse than Facebook, > Twitter and Gmail put together. That is the problem, i.e. if we are > indeed inclined to see any problem there. And if we see here the death > of what was the most important promise of the Internet - that of > pulling all of us - or at least all of our content - to the same > starting point on the Internet. > > Wonder why we keep insisting the problem is much more complex, or > technical etc. I think it is simple and clear as day light. > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Sat Aug 21 08:55:46 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 08:55:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. In-Reply-To: <4C6F908F.1000407@cavebear.com> References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C6F908F.1000407@cavebear.com> Message-ID: Karl, I think the suggestion in the second part of your message need to be taken up. As you may remember, I myself have recently suggested in another discussion thread that NN may boil down to terms and provision of a basic (and affordable) internet access for the public. I'd encourage you and others to develop as a comprehensive list of requirements you may think of. However, I will urge you (in fact for me, this is a prerequisite for the discussion to proceed in a meaningful manner) to provide for each one of the technical characteristics in technical terms and acronyms an explaining formulation for a broader social consumption and discourse. That would further enable the discussion you're calling for, and minimize the otherwise justified criticism that these processes are taken over by technical experts (when it's not by big corporations) at the expense of democracy. I see IGC as an autonomous body, not merely an appendix to IGF or something. If we can have a substantive discussion and agree on the basic level characteristics for a public internet service, nothing prevents us from releasing a position paper/statement and promoting it in this NN debate. Mawaki On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > > Another thing - We've talked a lot over the last few days about net > neutrality. > > It is my sense that when the fur stops flying that we will be in a regime in > which there is some sort of non-discriminatory base carriage of packets and > tiers of higher grade (and higher cost) service. > > But nobody has set down what those service levels might be, either in terms > of what a local, edge ISP would have to deliver, or what might be required > end-to-end across a sequence of providers. > > For example, a base level service might have characteristics such as: > >   - No discrimination on packet size, content, or IP address source or > destination. > >   - Best effort, with routers limited to certain defined queue policies, > such as weighted or unweighted fair queueing, tail drop, various forms of > RED. > >   - Delay not to exceed N milliseconds (on some sort of average) with jitter > not to exceed M milliseconds (with some defined algorithm to express > jitter). > >  - Path MTU of at least 1500 bytes. > >  etc etc. > > A higher level (which might be included in the baseline) would further > constrain delay and/or jitter to better support VoIP. > > There could be defined levels of non-neutrality, such as the preference for > DNS packets that I mentioned the other day. > > If these service levels and definitions were created consumers (and larger > entities) could engage in real discussions with providers about what is > actually being provided.  And providers would understand what they need to > deliver. > > The ITU has some work, G.1050, to characterize internet packet carriage > behaviour.  Although I have some problems with some of the burst algorithms > used in that specification, I believe that G.1050  perhaps could be used as > a baseline for discussion. > > Nobody else in the constellation of internet governance actors is doing this > sort of thing - yet is seems to me that that kind of work would be rather > useful to users and providers.  Were the IGF to pick up the baton and run > with it the other "stakeholders" would have no grounds to complain and could > only try to catch up. > > Moreover, I believe that by focusing for a while on more technical matters > that the emotional differences would be reduced it would be relatively easy > to make visible progress. > >        --karl-- > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Aug 21 09:21:27 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 09:21:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> Message-ID: On 8/21/10, JFC Morfin wrote: > The real issue we have, IMHO, > is that we refuse to use our own words in the meaning we defined and > try to keep using outdated perceptions we consensually declared as > obsolete years ago. re-Doing Geneva/Tunis preparations again and again. While not a personal attack, the phrase "outdated perceptions" is an empty attack, a kind of name-calling but without giving any real reasons for why something is 'outdated' and why, if outdated, it should not be relevant. Even if prior "preparations" had the full status of constitutional provisions, they would (a) still be subject to revisiting and debate and (b) be subject at all times to being construed in light of human rights law, and (c) subject to attack (even if "prior preparations" were a full-fledged constitutional provision) based on noncompliance with human rights and democracy law. The odd thing is that some people state that technology per se, which has no legal status whatsoever, is "inevitable" or has "changed the world" and there's nothing that can be done about it, while others argue human rights & democracy, which have the highest possible legal status and prior agreement, are problematic or even "outdated." This is truly puzzling. While there's no silver bullet in politics or governance, the highest laws of human rights and democracy are the very best tools available in the legal/governance/due process sense. What might be called internet techno-determinism is hardly beyond a witch's spell or placebo -- it works only if people are induced to believe in it > Why is this list not refering to the IGF mission to > deal with the emergences of the Internet and Information Society? If the highest laws (human rights) are not taken fully seriously, why would a aspirational document like an IGF mission be much more than a filler for filing cabinets? > Is it a > place to vote about votes, to talk, to work, to build, to protect people? Your proposal to develop something is just fine, at least if it doesn't exclude other vectors of development. But I would point out that 95% of the real work of politics and of democracy and of governance can be described as TALKING (debate, reminders, working toward agreement, etc) That being said I think you are completely correct to point to how much can easily be accomplished once a group or subgroup accept a mutual goal and work toward it. The thing is, essentially all the nations of the world have accepted human rights and democracy at the highest levels, declared them universal, and commanded all members to work towards their further implementation. To the extent this highest command is disregarded by some and/or not taken as seriously as necessary, it's hard to complain when some prior Geneva declaration or document doesn't function like a Bible, Torah or Koran. > I am afraid that a few people meeting on a mailing list or in a few > fora, even once a year paid by UN, ICANN, etc, having their own > outdated view of effective forces (I am sorry to be harsh but I do > think it is true - look at the way ALAC is not considered at ICANN, > and global members despised at ISOC, not even being represented at > the BoT) can achieve much. You say "effective forces". The highest laws are human rights laws. If there are "effective forces" stronger than that they are either (1) true FORCE or (2) illegitimate politically, or both. Here again, I would like to know exactly what the nature of the force is, where its authority comes from, and its nature as force? I am not ignorant of what you allude to, but upon examination these "forces" evaporate. If they have any legitimate force, in a conflict between the highest laws of human rights and any lower laws, which do you think properly prevails, IF WE USE REASON and the LAW? > Where are your guns? How do you want to > impose anything to people who do have guns, billions of dollars, the > technology, paying consumers and spend their time at social > engineering? In at least the name of human rights and/or democracy, in the 20th century alone guns have been marshalled numerous times. In WWII in particular, it seems the side more friendly to democracy won. Something like 300 million people have died in various wars either closely or loosely connected to settling the question of whether the people will be in charge via demcoracy and also WHO constitutes "the people." Is it just white men? Does it include women? Slaves? Nowadays, it has been a settled question that "the people" MEANS EVERYONE, no exceptions. The people = the people. Oops. Along comes the corporate governance "stakeholder" approach, living mostly in corporations but spreading to government and some NGOs. According to the stakeholder approach, which defines who matters and who gets a voice, the ones who matter, or at least matter more or the most, are the "stakeholders" or those who have an INTEREST, usually an economic interest, in the outcome. One fundamental reason stakeholder approaches are so disturbing is that they take a settled question -- a question settled at the cost of many millions of lives that asserted only the human dignity and equality of ALL people -- and says, in effect: The people does NOT mean "all" the people. The people means just selected stakeholders who know how to follow a tight agenda that's set for them. This is why it's "back to aristocracy" which is rule by less than all the people. Even if the government is "represented" in any fraction like 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, and the government is presumed to represent all the people, the corporate fraction as well as the civil society fraction (which can only represent its members at best, and not all) constitutes a dilution of democracy. Instead of democracy at full strength, it is reduced to 1/3 or less. If democratic mechanisms don't work, it may be due to corruption or it may be, if opinion is divided on a non-constitutional question, that it OUGHT to be stymied for the time being due to lack of a majority. The answer to "inefficiencies" of democracy is not to alter the most fundamental aspect of democracy: that We the people means ALL the people. The answer to perceived 'inefficiencies" of democracy is not to make it all efficient. U.S. President Harry Truman got at least one thing right: "If you want efficiency you'll get a dictatorship." There is only one source of power they do not have: > technical innovation supported by users adhesion. Since you disregard > technical issues, any form of social advancement, and > users/people/political/consumer/cultural organizations, I do not > really see what you may hope There's no MEANINGFUL technical speech at the level of governance that is not motivated by some higher value or principle or law, even if that idea is not stated. You speak of technical progress like it is unconnected to higher principles, and that is not true at all. Even if the higher principles, instead of the legally binding ones of democracy, are business values of "efficiency" "speed" or perceived pragmatism, those are all higher principles that motivate the seemingly "technical" stuff. In a democracy, which is to say in a free country or world, business values like efficiency ARE entitled to due weight, but only at the second level of analysis. The first level of analysis, too often skipped because the typical answer is "no problem here" is the question: "Is this proposal going to kill some or all of us, or take away our freedom, democracy or fundamental rights?" Some internet proposals like stakeholderism are controversial because, like all too many things, they skip the first question above and proceed on to secondary values like efficiency and business values. The correct approach, assuming one wishes to live in a free world of democracy, is like a typical hiring process; First, resume's are weeded through and those clearly not qualified, like those few but important proposals not consistent with democracy and therefore not qualified for it, are eliminated. After that, the smaller details of specific qualifications, rates of pay, efficiency of work and so forth can be discussed with the candidates remaining. One should not belittle "dying for glory." Hundreds of millions of people have done that regarding democracy and greater democracy. If the internet cannot be made democratic than the strength historically of the desire for greater democracy will fuel civil unrest at the least if not terrorism/wars as it consistently has for the last three centuries. But always those with 'better ideas' be they experts or dictators, want to inflict their ideas on all without their consent -- it's always "for their own good." A decent respect for humanity ought to guide us in favor of democracy as a guiding star for all of our actions, even if only out of fear for the deadly consequences historically of not doing so. Paul Lehto, J.D. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Aug 21 09:41:08 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:11:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. In-Reply-To: References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C6F908F.1000407@cavebear.com> Message-ID: <4C6FD774.1050005@itforchange.net> >NN may boil down to terms and provision >of a basic (and affordable) internet access for the public. I'd >encourage you and others to develop as a comprehensive list of >requirements you may think of. I agree, Mawaki. Just to set the ball rolling, I would suggest two simple points. Any telecom provider will provide the public Internet 1. at the same cost (or less) than any other IP based service provided by it 2. at the same (or better) QoS (quality of service) as any other IP service provided by it (though universally agreed differentiations of QoS between 'types' of applications - like video, voice etc may be allowed). VPNs can be exempt from this conditions. Point 2, which I think will be more contested, is similar to the principal 3 of Norway's NN agreement which is enclosed. Principle 3 Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address. ? This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual data streams that use the basic Internet service. ? But it does not mean that the principle precludes traffic management efforts on an operator's own network to block activities that harm the network, comply with orders from the authorities, ensure the quality of service for specific applications that require this, deal with special situations of temporary network overload or prioritise traffic on an individual user's connection according to the user's wishes. (ends) In fact why should we, as the IGC, not adopt a simplified version of the Norway's NN agreement and present it at the IGF, expressing concern about the creeping encroachment on NN principle vis a vis the mobile Internet. Does anyone fnd anything wrong with the Norway's NN agreement. Parminder On Saturday 21 August 2010 06:25 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > Karl, > > I think the suggestion in the second part of your message need to be > taken up. As you may remember, I myself have recently suggested in > another discussion thread that NN may boil down to terms and provision > of a basic (and affordable) internet access for the public. I'd > encourage you and others to develop as a comprehensive list of > requirements you may think of. However, I will urge you (in fact for > me, this is a prerequisite for the discussion to proceed in a > meaningful manner) to provide for each one of the technical > characteristics in technical terms and acronyms an explaining > formulation for a broader social consumption and discourse. That would > further enable the discussion you're calling for, and minimize the > otherwise justified criticism that these processes are taken over by > technical experts (when it's not by big corporations) at the expense > of democracy. > > I see IGC as an autonomous body, not merely an appendix to IGF or > something. If we can have a substantive discussion and agree on the > basic level characteristics for a public internet service, nothing > prevents us from releasing a position paper/statement and promoting it > in this NN debate. > > Mawaki > > > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> Another thing - We've talked a lot over the last few days about net >> neutrality. >> >> It is my sense that when the fur stops flying that we will be in a regime in >> which there is some sort of non-discriminatory base carriage of packets and >> tiers of higher grade (and higher cost) service. >> >> But nobody has set down what those service levels might be, either in terms >> of what a local, edge ISP would have to deliver, or what might be required >> end-to-end across a sequence of providers. >> >> For example, a base level service might have characteristics such as: >> >> - No discrimination on packet size, content, or IP address source or >> destination. >> >> - Best effort, with routers limited to certain defined queue policies, >> such as weighted or unweighted fair queueing, tail drop, various forms of >> RED. >> >> - Delay not to exceed N milliseconds (on some sort of average) with jitter >> not to exceed M milliseconds (with some defined algorithm to express >> jitter). >> >> - Path MTU of at least 1500 bytes. >> >> etc etc. >> >> A higher level (which might be included in the baseline) would further >> constrain delay and/or jitter to better support VoIP. >> >> There could be defined levels of non-neutrality, such as the preference for >> DNS packets that I mentioned the other day. >> >> If these service levels and definitions were created consumers (and larger >> entities) could engage in real discussions with providers about what is >> actually being provided. And providers would understand what they need to >> deliver. >> >> The ITU has some work, G.1050, to characterize internet packet carriage >> behaviour. Although I have some problems with some of the burst algorithms >> used in that specification, I believe that G.1050 perhaps could be used as >> a baseline for discussion. >> >> Nobody else in the constellation of internet governance actors is doing this >> sort of thing - yet is seems to me that that kind of work would be rather >> useful to users and providers. Were the IGF to pick up the baton and run >> with it the other "stakeholders" would have no grounds to complain and could >> only try to catch up. >> >> Moreover, I believe that by focusing for a while on more technical matters >> that the emotional differences would be reduced it would be relatively easy >> to make visible progress. >> >> --karl-- >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: norway NN guidelines Type: application/pdf Size: 44740 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at acm.org Sat Aug 21 10:38:48 2010 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 10:38:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C6FC5B2.7080105@itforchange.net> References: <4C6FBE1B.8070606@itforchange.net> <4C6FC5B2.7080105@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <902A77B0-78D7-4662-BA87-104969FAB60C@acm.org> On 21 Aug 2010, at 08:25, parminder wrote: > What I dont understand is that why just because we could not live in a compact of equality in the offline world, we should not strive to live in a compact of equality over and vis a vis the Internet (at least to the extent we can, at least to try, as progressive civil society). i agree with this very much. I think that our strongest disagreement is on how this compact of equality can be achieved. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Aug 21 11:31:18 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 08:31:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <61D3C69BDA41490BA651541B160834BD@userPC> Thanks Jefsey, I very much agree with what I understand to be your overall point that more effort (and research funding) should go into defining and articulating the public interest at the technical as well as the normative level. A frequent problem is that few of the technical issues are made accessible to the non-technical community by those who have an appropriate technical understanding. Also, the technical community too often fails to articulate a recognition that technical advance results in changed possibiities not inevitabilities; or carry through with CS's public interest mission in helping to define the legal and normative conditions within which those possibilities become realities. Mike (Blogging at http://gurstein.wordpress.com -----Original Message----- From: JFC Morfin [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 3:37 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism At 17:28 19/08/2010, Michael Gurstein wrote: Jefsey, While your note below seems to be making some useful points it demonstrates to my mind precisely one of the major hesitations I have concerning shifting away from existing approaches to democracy/the governance of governance into any of the alternatives currently being discussed in forums such as this one, especially where the main argument is that somehow the technology is forcing these changes upon us. We are having a discussion on quite fundamental issues of very broad significance and relevance and in the midst of this we are bombarded with technical jargon, references to highly specialized and even arcane areas of expertise and documentation, and undefined acronyms and neologisms and we are expected that somehow we are to take this seriously as arguments of more general import. (Or what would be even worse, nod sagely as though we understood and passed these along as useful contributions.) If you can translate what you have below into any of the official languages of the UN it would I think be a useful place to begin. Dear Michael, I am sorry but this is precisely what I did. None of the words I used it technical. They either belong to common language, to WSIS declarations, or to the desired interfacing between users and engineers and they are then introduced. The real issue we have, IMHO, is that we refuse to use our own words in the meaning we defined and try to keep using outdated perceptions we consensually declared as obsolete years ago. re-Doing Geneva/Tunis preparations again and again. I have the same problem with the technical community where some hate me and others support me. I am the facilitator of the iucg at ietf.org mailing list (Internet Users Contributing Group). A place for users to discuss this same problem: how to make engineers understand us (something they do want, but then we are to do our home work and use their precise terms because they means something precise, as much as our own precise terms). What I observe is that none of the so called CS attends that list. Hence my question what is CS in the opinion of the people of this list? Why is CS not supporting the WSIS recommendations? Why is this list not refering to the IGF mission to deal with the emergences of the Internet and Information Society? Why is not using the words of the WSIS its people seem to ignore? Is it a place to vote about votes, to talk, to work, to build, to protect people? Now, your concern irt. technology is something you share in common to the CS/Gov/mostPrivate because the WSIS failed to see and document it. The technology IS forcing the changes upon you, period. The fault of the WSIS was to not identify the Adminance mechanisms and explain how Governance should participate in order to force the people's specifications on the technology. This is what the IUCG tries to introduced aside of the IAB (IETF Internet Architecture Board) which up to now has assumed the plannification of the technology evolution, without any user/society/gov control while it is sponsored by the private sector. Here is what IAB says (RFC 3869) on the matter: * "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." (NB. This is what ISOC now SELL!!! infuence on the technology to its platinum sponsors) * "The IAB believes that it would be helpful for governments and other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to sustain these funding levels going forward." This was six years ago. CS, Govs and Tunis failed to answer that. They said: "Google", so many joined Google. The only existing answer I know off is the IUCG where self-sustained non-commercials lead users carry research and standardisation action towards a people's internet (cf. "people centric - à caratère humain - centrada en la personna" (WSIS)). Who knows on this list that they have blocked cultural filtering and changed the very concept of the internet, introducing the principle of subsidiarity in its archtitecture and are fighting hard for the IETF to understand the implications of what they have consensually approved and now published. I am afraid that a few people meeting on a mailing list or in a few fora, even once a year paid by UN, ICANN, etc, having their own outdated view of effective forces (I am sorry to be harsh but I do think it is true - look at the way ALAC is not considered at ICANN, and global members despised at ISOC, not even being represented at the BoT) can achieve much. Where are your guns? How do you want to impose anything to people who do have guns, billions of dollars, the technology, paying consumers and spend their time at social engineering? There is only one source of power they do not have: technical innovation supported by users adhesion. Since you disregard technical issues, any form of social advancement, and users/people/political/consumer/cultural organizations, I do not really see what you may hope except to die for the glory as did the GA, IDNO, icannatlarge, ALAC. Do you realise that your Travel expenses to IGF meetings only would permit us to drastically change the Internet technology and make it fit what you try to vote for. Sorry to be upset, but sometimes it does some good and may help :-) This is my freedom of technical speach ! Best jfc Tks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: jefsey [ mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:57 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism At 05:05 19/08/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: I haven't been participating in this discussion, because I don't want to stick too much of an oar in while I'm co-coordinator, but I've been avidly reading and there have been many pearls of wisdom exchanged. I'll just pipe up briefly here to add one short +1 to this, and to make a couple of related remarks. Interesting debate. However, I do not want to harp on that too much, but democracy seems to be an outdated concept that is related to a period of prevalent dialogue calling for an elected chain of dialogue from bottom to top. With the demographic growth, and its implied direct horizontal relational consequences, we entered a polylogue period (people talking to everyone on behalf of everyone), and to facilitate this polylogue we created the Internet. This is new, and we are learning from experience as to what polycracy may mean and how one "governs", together with each other, a 7++ billion multicolor, multicultural, multilingual, multifaith, etc. States UN, in turn resulting from and dependent on a developing set of new technologies. The WSIS offered a panel of different, and probably prophetic, insights: - individual people centrism - dynamic coalitions: everyone can join/quit them to promote/defend a position - enhanced cooperations (to be worked on) to carry common tasks - where the current IESOCANN failure is, due to the still prevailing ICANN "Class IN" centrism make-believe. However, the enhanced cooperation mechanism is something that we will probably have to consider soon enough due to the principle of subsidiarity becoming the third founding principle (through the IDNA2008 illustration) of the Internet architecture (after the principle of adaptability as a result of the principle of permanent change - RFC 1958; and the principle of simplicity - RFC 3439). - multistakeholderism. However, in mainly quoting the governance regalian space, civil society, private sector, and international bodies, they overlooked three key missing stakeholder classes: money, users, and adminance. --- Adminance is what provides its technical soil to Governance (standards, operations, structures, training, maintenance, etc.). --- Users are the people who are the center of the whole thing (far away from CS, which deals with principles, while Users deal with reality). --- Money is still currently a decimal non-digital transaction memory tool that is devastated by the emergence of the digital ecosystem and is totally out of tune with it, and with the emerging polycracy (hence the current financial crisis and corruption wave [Russia: 50% of the GNP]). - the IGF decision making tool. Certainly the least understood proposition to date. While the main concept is still "coordinated cooperation" (by US, ICANN, UN...), the IGF is NOT a place for coordination (with voted motions influenced by lobbies and sponsors), but rather a place for "concertation" (French/EU meaning), i.e. where everyone can come to a better, mutually informed, personal decision. In such a system, stability can only proceed from what Buckminster Fuller called "tensegrity" (integrity based on a balance between tension and compression components).,This is probably a notion that we should explore better as a multilateral continuation of the East/West Cold War coexistence and further US globalization attempt. jfc I agree that civil society must promote the adoption of a framework for further democratising global governance (for which "multistakeholderism" is just a convenient and slightly inaccurate shorthand), beyond the Internet governance regime, in which it is really just a test-bed. Agreeing with Wolfgang, and disagreeing slightly with Parminder, for me the inclusion of the three stakeholder groups in multi-stakeholder structures has never been about increasing the power of the private sector, but on the contary, balancing it. The private sector already has the ear of governments, and by promoting multistakeholderism we ask nothing more than for the same privilege. In Internet governance, we already have a good basic starting point for such a framework in the WSIS process criteria and the IGF's (unfulfilled) mandate to assess the performance of Internet governance institutions against these criteria. Beyond that, the framework is being taken forward by efforts like the UNECE/CoE/APC Code of Good Practice on information, participation and transparency in Internet governance (already referred to in this thread, http://www.intgovcode.org/). Other regimes are very far behind. I have just written a paper in which I argue for the development of global principles for governance of the global regime on intellectual property, in view of the threat of ACTA, whose negotiators not only flout basic principles of democratic global governance, but also feign ignorance that they are doing so. One of our workshops (Parminder's) will deal with this in detail too. My fear, though, is that whilst Internet governance is, as I've said, just a test-bed for multistakeholderism, if it doesn't soon prove its value then it will not only have been born there but will die there as well, and end up with no more currency in global governance discourse than communism or anarchism. In this respect I respectfully can't agree with Ginger (another reason I'm piping up now!) about the need to constrain the IGF from producing "results". The fears about "the pressure of negotiations or the need for an agreed-upon end 'result'", whilst not unfounded, should be systematically confronted and addressed rather than fatalistically accepted. It is more important that multi-stakeholderism works (and for us, not just for the incumbent powers) rather than that it doesn't rock the boat. And by "works", we mean that we need to have an appreciable impact on shaping actual public policy decisions at a global level. At the moment, we quite simply don't (research presented at last year's workshop on "Identifying the Impact" demonstrated this, and the UNSG's recent remarks also acknowledge it). In fact there are many ways in which the power of governments and other powerful actors to screw up the process can be defused. I've written about these ad nauseum and I don't intend to do so again here, but read again the summary I wrote for the IGP for a refresher if you are interested ( http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). With that out of the way, I'll re-lurk and leave you all to continue these very productive and interesting discussions. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Aug 21 13:01:25 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:01:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. In-Reply-To: <4C6FD774.1050005@itforchange.net> References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4C6F908F.1000407@cavebear.com> ,<4C6FD774.1050005@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEF9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I promised Parminder a longer email on a suggested policy approach; I will jump in here. First I agree that the IGC is free to define whatever it wants. What the IGF makes of it if anything is a separate issue. But why exactly civil societyin particular should be fearful of IGF ever reaching a point at which some conclusions were drawn from some conversations or other actions there - never made a lot of sense to me. As my past actions have shown; but let's leave that alone for now. Instead let's - define the open Internet. Which everyone claims to be for, so it should be an easy sell right. (tactical aside: by slightly changing the subject from 'Network Neutrality' which cannot come unbound from the legal and regulatory precedents around the term, we have a clearer field of action. Meaning we can say open internet is really what network neutrality means, but without having to argue over specific debates like the FCC's dilemma of redefining an information service as a telecommunication service - by decree of 5 commissioners, after 50 years of regulatory proceedings and court cases on what is a telecom versus what is an information service (for reference: FCC Computer Inquiries I, II, III IV - and beyond!) (Last note: Good luck with that Chairman Genachowski, I'm sure you'll enjoy your time in court for the rest of your term in office, hanging with AT&T, and Verizon, and now your old pal Google sitting with their new pals.) But on other hand if we are defining what 'open Internet' means, great, we can do that. And remember everyone claims to be in favor already, so what could be wrong with providing some clarity? The fact that 'open Internet' crosses public and private networks and uses non-proprietary - and proprietary - protocols and technologies - isn't really the issue we all agree right. There is by now broad public interest in the functioning of this open Internet, no controversy there either. So to amend Parminder's suggested approach: 1st high-level policy principles 2nd a definition of open Internet 3rd service level expectations 4th technical specs Simple right? ; ) 1) POLICY PRINCIPLES OPEN UNIVERSAL FLEXIBLE NO DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN WIRELINE AND WIRELESS Those are lifted from the Caribbean Internet Governance Framework developed a few years back and approved at Ministerial level with CTU, ICANN, ITU, CARICOM, ECTEL etc participation- and inspired partially by our 'Gordian Knot' book calling for what we called at the time 'open communication infrastructure.' TRANSPARENCY - probably should be there as well, we probably underplayed that way back then. 2) Open Internet is....ok here's the tricky part. Get this right in a few words and we can set an agenda. I suggest something like 'The open Internet offers open, universal and flexible access without discrimination between wireline and wireless.' Ok, we can make it shorter: 'The open Internet offers open, universal and flexible non-discriminatory access.' 3) I defer to Karl to insert a suggested baseline set of service level parameters and 4) technical specifications for open Internet access. So that's my suggested approach....or we can just become another player in the Net Neutrality debate, one unlikely to be heard over the noise coming out of Washington, Brussels, Google, Verizon, etc...again, good luck with that. Lee ________________________________________ From: parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 9:41 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. >NN may boil down to terms and provision >of a basic (and affordable) internet access for the public. I'd >encourage you and others to develop as a comprehensive list of >requirements you may think of. I agree, Mawaki. Just to set the ball rolling, I would suggest two simple points. Any telecom provider will provide the public Internet 1. at the same cost (or less) than any other IP based service provided by it 2. at the same (or better) QoS (quality of service) as any other IP service provided by it (though universally agreed differentiations of QoS between 'types' of applications - like video, voice etc may be allowed). VPNs can be exempt from this conditions. Point 2, which I think will be more contested, is similar to the principal 3 of Norway's NN agreement which is enclosed. Principle 3 Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address.  This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual data streams that use the basic Internet service.  But it does not mean that the principle precludes traffic management efforts on an operator’s own network to block activities that harm the network, comply with orders from the authorities, ensure the quality of service for specific applications that require this, deal with special situations of temporary network overload or prioritise traffic on an individual user’s connection according to the user’s wishes. (ends) In fact why should we, as the IGC, not adopt a simplified version of the Norway's NN agreement and present it at the IGF, expressing concern about the creeping encroachment on NN principle vis a vis the mobile Internet. Does anyone fnd anything wrong with the Norway's NN agreement. Parminder On Saturday 21 August 2010 06:25 PM, Mawaki Chango wrote: Karl, I think the suggestion in the second part of your message need to be taken up. As you may remember, I myself have recently suggested in another discussion thread that NN may boil down to terms and provision of a basic (and affordable) internet access for the public. I'd encourage you and others to develop as a comprehensive list of requirements you may think of. However, I will urge you (in fact for me, this is a prerequisite for the discussion to proceed in a meaningful manner) to provide for each one of the technical characteristics in technical terms and acronyms an explaining formulation for a broader social consumption and discourse. That would further enable the discussion you're calling for, and minimize the otherwise justified criticism that these processes are taken over by technical experts (when it's not by big corporations) at the expense of democracy. I see IGC as an autonomous body, not merely an appendix to IGF or something. If we can have a substantive discussion and agree on the basic level characteristics for a public internet service, nothing prevents us from releasing a position paper/statement and promoting it in this NN debate. Mawaki On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 4:38 AM, Karl Auerbach wrote: Another thing - We've talked a lot over the last few days about net neutrality. It is my sense that when the fur stops flying that we will be in a regime in which there is some sort of non-discriminatory base carriage of packets and tiers of higher grade (and higher cost) service. But nobody has set down what those service levels might be, either in terms of what a local, edge ISP would have to deliver, or what might be required end-to-end across a sequence of providers. For example, a base level service might have characteristics such as: - No discrimination on packet size, content, or IP address source or destination. - Best effort, with routers limited to certain defined queue policies, such as weighted or unweighted fair queueing, tail drop, various forms of RED. - Delay not to exceed N milliseconds (on some sort of average) with jitter not to exceed M milliseconds (with some defined algorithm to express jitter). - Path MTU of at least 1500 bytes. etc etc. A higher level (which might be included in the baseline) would further constrain delay and/or jitter to better support VoIP. There could be defined levels of non-neutrality, such as the preference for DNS packets that I mentioned the other day. If these service levels and definitions were created consumers (and larger entities) could engage in real discussions with providers about what is actually being provided. And providers would understand what they need to deliver. The ITU has some work, G.1050, to characterize internet packet carriage behaviour. Although I have some problems with some of the burst algorithms used in that specification, I believe that G.1050 perhaps could be used as a baseline for discussion. Nobody else in the constellation of internet governance actors is doing this sort of thing - yet is seems to me that that kind of work would be rather useful to users and providers. Were the IGF to pick up the baton and run with it the other "stakeholders" would have no grounds to complain and could only try to catch up. Moreover, I believe that by focusing for a while on more technical matters that the emotional differences would be reduced it would be relatively easy to make visible progress. --karl-- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 21 12:48:46 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:48:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100821172635.05a62688@jefsey.com> At 15:21 21/08/2010, Paul Lehto wrote: >On 8/21/10, JFC Morfin wrote: > > The real issue we have, IMHO, > > is that we refuse to use our own words in the meaning we defined and > > try to keep using outdated perceptions we consensually declared as > > obsolete years ago. re-Doing Geneva/Tunis preparations again and again. > >While not a personal attack, the phrase "outdated perceptions" is an >empty attack, a kind of name-calling but without giving any real >reasons for why something is 'outdated' and why, if outdated, it >should not be relevant. Paul, this would only mean that our world consensus was less relevant than this list consensus. With all the due respect this list's merits, there is a big problem of publicity. The entire world knows the WSIS consensus, only the members of this list know there could be sometimes a consensus here. What is the proposed solution? >Even if prior "preparations" had the full >status of constitutional provisions, they would (a) still be subject >to revisiting and debate and (b) be subject at all times to being >construed in light of human rights law, and (c) subject to attack >(even if "prior preparations" were a full-fledged constitutional >provision) based on noncompliance with human rights and democracy law. I agree. But I frankly think we can do better than attacking our own basis, friends, positions, etc. >The odd thing is that some people state that technology per se, which >has no legal status whatsoever, :-) you mean that the world, the cosmos, languages, have come with a legal status. Except if we are God the Father we can hardly claim that? > is "inevitable" or has "changed the >world" and there's nothing that can be done about it, To the countrary, I explain you what is to be done, what we do, how we win, and how we are too much alone .... because we can also make our own errors. >while others >argue human rights & democracy, which have the highest possible legal >status and prior agreement, are problematic or even "outdated." This >is truly puzzling. While there's no silver bullet in politics or >governance, the highest laws of human rights and democracy are the >very best tools available in the legal/governance/due process sense. If you can find a Court to juge. The juge we have are 7 billions people who use their mobiles. Techies use to call the market because they are paid by merchants. Nevertheless they are real people, not just motions. >What might be called internet techno-determinism is hardly beyond a >witch's spell or placebo -- it works only if people are induced to >believe in it. mmmm.... we can debate this for years, in using our poorly techno-determined e-mail system. > > Why is this list not refering to the IGF mission to > > deal with the emergences of the Internet and Information Society? > >If the highest laws (human rights) are not taken fully seriously, why >would a aspirational document like an IGF mission be much more than a >filler for filing cabinets? I will take human right activists seriously the day they will fight for e-Human Rights. A 31st article on human rights in cyberspace. Until then there is no coherent basis for any action. No ground to protect e-privacy, nothing to define NN. Sorry, but discussing off-nets rights is of no use on the nets. > > Is it a > > place to vote about votes, to talk, to work, to build, to protect people? > >Your proposal to develop something is just fine, at least if it >doesn't exclude other vectors of development. But I would point out >that 95% of the real work of politics and of democracy and of >governance can be described as TALKING (debate, reminders, working >toward agreement, etc) That being said I think you are completely >correct to point to how much can easily be accomplished once a group >or subgroup accept a mutual goal and work toward it. The thing is, >essentially all the nations of the world have accepted human rights >and democracy at the highest levels, declared them universal, and >commanded all members to work towards their further implementation. Do you really believe this? >To the extent this highest command is disregarded by some and/or not >taken as seriously as necessary, it's hard to complain when some prior >Geneva declaration or document doesn't function like a Bible, Torah or >Koran. What I observed is that people on this list question the documents that legitimate their own existence as a coalition. Everyone is involved. Everyone is concerned. Everyone can change the world, moreover the cyberworld. Yet there is no e-humanright guidance provided. We do what we can. But I m sure we could do much more if (1) we followed the WSIS decisions as a common current guidance (starting knowing and building on them) and (2) got a clear road-map as a 31st HR (proposed) article. > > I am afraid that a few people meeting on a mailing list or in a few > > fora, even once a year paid by UN, ICANN, etc, having their own > > outdated view of effective forces (I am sorry to be harsh but I do > > think it is true - look at the way ALAC is not considered at ICANN, > > and global members despised at ISOC, not even being represented at > > the BoT) can achieve much. > >You say "effective forces". The highest laws are human rights laws. I wish you would be true in real life, and that e-human rights had been agreed upon. >If there are "effective forces" stronger than that they are either (1) >true FORCE or (2) illegitimate politically, or both. Here again, I >would like to know exactly what the nature of the force is, where its >authority comes from, and its nature as force? I am not ignorant of >what you allude to, but upon examination these "forces" evaporate. If >they have any legitimate force, in a conflict between the highest laws >of human rights and any lower laws, which do you think properly >prevails, IF WE USE REASON and the LAW? To use reason and the law means to call upon police forces to reasonable enforce the law, or if you don't have a police force on reasonable people support (ex. Gandhi). > > Where are your guns? How do you want to > > impose anything to people who do have guns, billions of dollars, the > > technology, paying consumers and spend their time at social > > engineering? > >In at least the name of human rights and/or democracy, in the 20th >century alone guns have been marshalled numerous times. In WWII in >particular, it seems the side more friendly to democracy won. With a few guns, a few dollars, too :-) where are ours ? >Something like 300 million people have died in various wars either >closely or loosely connected to settling the question of whether the >people will be in charge via demoracy and also WHO constitutes "the >people." Is it just white men? Does it include women? Slaves? > >Nowadays, it has been a settled question that "the people" MEANS >EVERYONE, no exceptions. The people = the people. Where are they in the IGF structure? >Oops. Along comes the corporate governance "stakeholder" approach, >living mostly in corporations but spreading to government and some >NGOs. > >According to the stakeholder approach, which defines who matters and >who gets a voice, the ones who matter, or at least matter more or the >most, are the "stakeholders" or those who have an INTEREST, usually an >economic interest, in the outcome. The elite, money, industry, etc. ploutocracy. >One fundamental reason stakeholder approaches are so disturbing is >that they take a settled question -- a question settled at the cost of >many millions of lives that asserted only the human dignity and >equality of ALL people -- and says, in effect: The people does NOT >mean "all" the people. The people means just selected stakeholders >who know how to follow a tight agenda that's set for them. This is why >it's "back to aristocracy" which is rule by less than all the people. I am sorry. This is not what they said. This is what you guys accept. What are your reach out efforts? What is your strategy for this CS coalition to count millions members? You are embarassed about a few people representing billions people. We all know that democracy cannot work in the cyberspace, from the very first ICANN election. So, everyone tris to find a way around. That is fine and stakeholderism is most probably a part of the response. But let not call this democracy, or be candid and say it is an Athenian democracy. Again how many political parties, how many trade-unions, how many consumer ogranizations, how many cultural associations, how many churches, etc. etc. are members of this dynamic coalition or just represented, five years after Tunis? >Even if the government is "represented" in any fraction like 1/3, 1/3, >1/3, and the government is presumed to represent all the people, the >corporate fraction as well as the civil society fraction (which can >only represent its members at best, and not all) constitutes a >dilution of democracy. Instead of democracy at full strength, it is >reduced to 1/3 or less. > >If democratic mechanisms don't work, it may be due to corruption or it >may be, if opinion is divided on a non-constitutional question, that >it OUGHT to be stymied for the time being due to lack of a majority. No. Democracy is outdated because it calls for too many things to be mastered by every individual. This does not mean the concept is inadequate, but that its embodyment must adapt. This is what we started doing at the WSIS. If we do not follow upon our own progresses, we will not suceed. Polycracy is when I can say as a citizen I do trust those who are competent to ask me when they have to reach a decision which concerns me, and to protect me otherwise. Policracy is built as a multi-subsidiarity. My protection carried under my control at the right place by the right people. >The answer to "inefficiencies" of democracy is not to alter the most >fundamental aspect of democracy: that We the people means ALL the >people. Does not help much if these people are manipulated by social engineering paid by mechants using democratic voting systems to control Govs. We first need to free the people from their machines so they may empower themselves in the today environment. Law cannot do anything against ruling machines. >The answer to perceived 'inefficiencies" of democracy is not to make >it all efficient. U.S. President Harry Truman got at least one thing >right: "If you want efficiency you'll get a dictatorship." This is where USA are not as much civilized as Greeks. If you want efficiency you need intelligence. >There is only one source of power they do not have: > > technical innovation supported by users adhesion. Since you disregard > > technical issues, any form of social advancement, and > > users/people/political/consumer/cultural organizations, I do not > > really see what you may hope > >There's no MEANINGFUL technical speech at the level of governance that >is not motivated by some higher value or principle or law, even if >that idea is not stated. You speak of technical progress like it is >unconnected to higher principles, You assert things without knowing here. http://iucg.org/wiki/Translating_Civil_Society_preocupations You are welcome to add your own contributions. >and that is not true at all. Even >if the higher principles, instead of the legally binding ones of >democracy, are business values of "efficiency" "speed" or perceived >pragmatism, those are all higher principles that motivate the >seemingly "technical" stuff. You seem to assert that innefficiency is a democratic value. >In a democracy, which is to say in a free country or world, business >values like efficiency ARE entitled to due weight, but only at the >second level of analysis. The first level of analysis, too often >skipped because the typical answer is "no problem here" is the >question: "Is this proposal going to kill some or all of us, or take >away our freedom, democracy or fundamental rights?" > >Some internet proposals like stakeholderism are controversial >because, like all too many things, they skip the first question above >and proceed on to secondary values like efficiency and business >values. Agreed. This is why they should be updated. >The correct approach, assuming one wishes to live in a free world of >democracy, is like a typical hiring process; First, resume's are >weeded through and those clearly not qualified, like those few but >important proposals not consistent with democracy and therefore not >qualified for it, are eliminated. After that, the smaller details of >specific qualifications, rates of pay, efficiency of work and so forth >can be discussed with the candidates remaining. This would mean that someone is organizing the hiring. This is why democracy is outdated by polycracy. i.e. not the government of the people by the reps of the people, but the life of the people concerted by the people. >One should not belittle "dying for glory." Hundreds of millions of >people have done that regarding democracy and greater democracy. If >the internet cannot be made democratic than the strength historically >of the desire for greater democracy will fuel civil unrest at the >least if not terrorism/wars as it consistently has for the last three >centuries. I understand what you fight for. This is glorious. But I am afraid you are not fighting in the proper way if you only fight this way. >But always those with 'better ideas' be they experts or dictators, >want to inflict their ideas on all without their consent -- it's >always "for their own good." A decent respect for humanity ought to >guide us in favor of democracy as a guiding star for all of our >actions, even if only out of fear for the deadly consequences >historically of not doing so. You can fight for the glory of the people, and/or you can fight for the victory of the people. The three options are helpful. None can win alone. Cheers. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sat Aug 21 13:05:19 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 19:05:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <61D3C69BDA41490BA651541B160834BD@userPC> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> <61D3C69BDA41490BA651541B160834BD@userPC> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100821184711.05a62918@jefsey.com> At 17:31 21/08/2010, Michael Gurstein wrote: >Thanks Jefsey, > >I very much agree with what I understand to be your overall point >that more effort (and research funding) should go into defining and >articulating the public interest at the technical as well as the >normative level. > >A frequent problem is that few of the technical issues are made >accessible to the non-technical community by those who have an >appropriate technical understanding. This is like everything in life: you have to fight for it. This is my fight and work for the last 35 years. I obtained the IUCG (http://iucg.org/wiki). Everyone is welcome. The IETF Chair is on the list. >Also, the technical community too often fails to articulate a >recognition that technical advance results in changed possibiities >not inevitabilities; or carry through with CS's public interest >mission in helping to define the legal and normative conditions >within which those possibilities become realities. The technical community considers: the need, the technical solution, a culture (*), the response of the market (supposed to be the users). No one from the CS spend time on researching and explaining the need. They discuss the use, not what is to be built. We are in full agreement, but we need people to carry the job. More lead users than lawyers. Nothing against lawyers, but the machines' code is not voted. (*) RFC 3935, the mission of the IETF: - " The goal of the IETF is to make the Internet work better. The mission of the IETF is to produce high quality, relevant technical and engineering documents that influence the way people design, use, and manage the Internet in such a way as to make the Internet work better. " This is clear: people have to serve the Internet so it works better for all, i.e. stakeholders. - " The Internet isn't value-neutral, and neither is the IETF. We want the Internet to be useful for communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness. We embrace technical concepts such as decentralized control, edge-user empowerment and sharing of resources, because those concepts resonate with the core values of the IETF community. These concepts have little to do with the technology that's possible, and much to do with the technology that we choose to create". The true problem is that these values today do not match HR. This _is_ what to be solved in priority because usage necessarily roots in technology. One do not ask Governance to develop solutions, but to share in Adminance to share in speciftying them, in controlling their development, in validating the result. As does anyone who order a software development. If industry handled software engineers the way SC does, there is a long time Industry would be dead! Best jfc Best. jfc > >Mike > >(Blogging at http://gurstein.wordpress.com >-----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin [mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] >Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 3:37 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein; >governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: RE: [governance] multistakeholderism > >At 17:28 19/08/2010, Michael Gurstein wrote: >>Jefsey, >> >>While your note below seems to be making some useful points it >>demonstrates to my mind precisely one of the major hesitations I >>have concerning shifting away from existing approaches to >>democracy/the governance of governance into any of the alternatives >>currently being discussed in forums such as this one, especially >>where the main argument is that somehow the technology is forcing >>these changes upon us. >> >>We are having a discussion on quite fundamental issues of very >>broad significance and relevance and in the midst of this we are >>bombarded with technical jargon, references to highly specialized >>and even arcane areas of expertise and documentation, and undefined >>acronyms and neologisms and we are expected that somehow we are to >>take this seriously as arguments of more general import. (Or what >>would be even worse, nod sagely as though we understood and passed >>these along as useful contributions.) >> >>If you can translate what you have below into any of the official >>languages of the UN it would I think be a useful place to begin. > >Dear Michael, > >I am sorry but this is precisely what I did. None of the words I >used it technical. They either belong to common language, to WSIS >declarations, or to the desired interfacing between users and >engineers and they are then introduced. The real issue we have, >IMHO, is that we refuse to use our own words in the meaning we >defined and try to keep using outdated perceptions we consensually >declared as obsolete years ago. re-Doing Geneva/Tunis preparations >again and again. > >I have the same problem with the technical community where some hate >me and others support me. I am the facilitator of the iucg at ietf.org >mailing list (Internet Users Contributing Group). A place for users >to discuss this same problem: how to make engineers understand us >(something they do want, but then we are to do our home work and use >their precise terms because they means something precise, as much as >our own precise terms). What I observe is that none of the so called >CS attends that list. Hence my question what is CS in the opinion of >the people of this list? Why is CS not supporting the WSIS >recommendations? Why is this list not refering to the IGF mission to >deal with the emergences of the Internet and Information Society? >Why is not using the words of the WSIS its people seem to ignore? Is >it a place to vote about votes, to talk, to work, to build, to protect people? > >Now, your concern irt. technology is something you share in common >to the CS/Gov/mostPrivate because the WSIS failed to see and >document it. The technology IS forcing the changes upon you, period. >The fault of the WSIS was to not identify the Adminance mechanisms >and explain how Governance should participate in order to force the >people's specifications on the technology. This is what the IUCG >tries to introduced aside of the IAB (IETF Internet Architecture >Board) which up to now has assumed the plannification of the >technology evolution, without any user/society/gov control while it >is sponsored by the private sector. Here is what IAB says (RFC 3869) >on the matter: > >* "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." (NB. This is what >ISOC now SELL!!! infuence on the technology to its platinum sponsors) > >* "The IAB believes that it would be helpful for governments and >other non-commercial sponsors to increase their funding of both >basic research and applied research relating to the Internet, and to >sustain these funding levels going forward." > >This was six years ago. CS, Govs and Tunis failed to answer that. >They said: "Google", so many joined Google. The only existing answer >I know off is the IUCG where self-sustained non-commercials lead >users carry research and standardisation action towards a people's >internet (cf. "people centric - à caratère humain - centrada en la >personna" (WSIS)). Who knows on this list that they have blocked >cultural filtering and changed the very concept of the internet, >introducing the principle of subsidiarity in its archtitecture and >are fighting hard for the IETF to understand the implications of >what they have consensually approved and now published. > >I am afraid that a few people meeting on a mailing list or in a few >fora, even once a year paid by UN, ICANN, etc, having their own >outdated view of effective forces (I am sorry to be harsh but I do >think it is true - look at the way ALAC is not considered at ICANN, >and global members despised at ISOC, not even being represented at >the BoT) can achieve much. Where are your guns? How do you want to >impose anything to people who do have guns, billions of dollars, the >technology, paying consumers and spend their time at social >engineering? There is only one source of power they do not have: >technical innovation supported by users adhesion. Since you >disregard technical issues, any form of social advancement, and >users/people/political/consumer/cultural organizations, I do not >really see what you may hope except to die for the glory as did the >GA, IDNO, icannatlarge, ALAC. Do you realise that your Travel >expenses to IGF meetings only would permit us to drastically change >the Internet technology and make it fit what you try to vote for. > >Sorry to be upset, but sometimes it does some good and may help :-) >This is my freedom of technical speach ! > >Best > >jfc > > >> >>Tks, >> >>Mike >>-----Original Message----- >>From: jefsey [ mailto:jefsey at jefsey.com] >>Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 12:57 AM >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; >>governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein >>Subject: Re: [governance] multistakeholderism >> >>At 05:05 19/08/2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>I haven't been participating in this discussion, because I don't >>>want to stick too much of an oar in while I'm co-coordinator, but >>>I've been avidly reading and there have been many pearls of wisdom >>>exchanged. I'll just pipe up briefly here to add one short +1 to >>>this, and to make a couple of related remarks. >>Interesting debate. However, I do not want to harp on that too >>much, but democracy seems to be an outdated concept that is related >>to a period of prevalent dialogue calling for an elected chain of >>dialogue from bottom to top. With the demographic growth, and its >>implied direct horizontal relational consequences, we entered a >>polylogue period (people talking to everyone on behalf of >>everyone), and to facilitate this polylogue we created the >>Internet. This is new, and we are learning from experience as to >>what polycracy may mean and how one "governs", together with each >>other, a 7++ billion multicolor, multicultural, multilingual, >>multifaith, etc. States UN, in turn resulting from and dependent on >>a developing set of new technologies. >>The WSIS offered a panel of different, and probably prophetic, insights: >>- individual people centrism >>- dynamic coalitions: everyone can join/quit them to promote/defend >>a position >>- enhanced cooperations (to be worked on) to carry common tasks - >>where the current IESOCANN failure is, due to the still prevailing >>ICANN "Class IN" centrism make-believe. However, the enhanced >>cooperation mechanism is something that we will probably have to >>consider soon enough due to the principle of subsidiarity becoming >>the third founding principle (through the IDNA2008 illustration) of >>the Internet architecture (after the principle of adaptability as a >>result of the principle of permanent change - RFC 1958; and the >>principle of simplicity - RFC 3439). >>- multistakeholderism. However, in mainly quoting the governance >>regalian space, civil society, private sector, and international >>bodies, they overlooked three key missing stakeholder classes: >>money, users, and adminance. >>--- Adminance is what provides its technical soil to Governance >>(standards, operations, structures, training, maintenance, etc.). >>--- Users are the people who are the center of the whole thing (far >>away from CS, which deals with principles, while Users deal with reality). >>--- Money is still currently a decimal non-digital transaction >>memory tool that is devastated by the emergence of the digital >>ecosystem and is totally out of tune with it, and with the emerging >>polycracy (hence the current financial crisis and corruption wave >>[Russia: 50% of the GNP]). >>- the IGF decision making tool. Certainly the least understood >>proposition to date. While the main concept is still "coordinated >>cooperation" (by US, ICANN, UN...), the IGF is NOT a place for >>coordination (with voted motions influenced by lobbies and >>sponsors), but rather a place for "concertation" (French/EU >>meaning), i.e. where everyone can come to a better, mutually >>informed, personal decision. >>In such a system, stability can only proceed from what Buckminster >>Fuller called "tensegrity" (integrity based on a balance between >>tension and compression components).,This is probably a notion that >>we should explore better as a multilateral continuation of the >>East/West Cold War coexistence and further US globalization attempt. >>jfc >> >> >>>I agree that civil society must promote the adoption of a >>>framework for further democratising global governance (for which >>>"multistakeholderism" is just a convenient and slightly inaccurate >>>shorthand), beyond the Internet governance regime, in which it is >>>really just a test-bed. >>>Agreeing with Wolfgang, and disagreeing slightly with Parminder, >>>for me the inclusion of the three stakeholder groups in >>>multi-stakeholder structures has never been about increasing the >>>power of the private sector, but on the contary, balancing >>>it. The private sector already has the ear of governments, and by >>>promoting multistakeholderism we ask nothing more than for the same privilege. >>>In Internet governance, we already have a good basic starting >>>point for such a framework in the WSIS process criteria and the >>>IGF's (unfulfilled) mandate to assess the performance of Internet >>>governance institutions against these criteria. Beyond that, the >>>framework is being taken forward by efforts like the UNECE/CoE/APC >>>Code of Good Practice on information, participation and >>>transparency in Internet governance (already referred to in this >>>thread, http://www.intgovcode.org/). >>>Other regimes are very far behind. I have just written a paper in >>>which I argue for the development of global principles for >>>governance of the global regime on intellectual property, in view >>>of the threat of ACTA, whose negotiators not only flout basic >>>principles of democratic global governance, but also feign >>>ignorance that they are doing so. One of our workshops >>>(Parminder's) will deal with this in detail too. >>>My fear, though, is that whilst Internet governance is, as I've >>>said, just a test-bed for multistakeholderism, if it doesn't soon >>>prove its value then it will not only have been born there but >>>will die there as well, and end up with no more currency in global >>>governance discourse than communism or anarchism. >>>In this respect I respectfully can't agree with Ginger (another >>>reason I'm piping up now!) about the need to constrain the IGF >>>from producing "results". The fears about "the pressure of >>>negotiations or the need for an agreed-upon end 'result'", whilst >>>not unfounded, should be systematically confronted and addressed >>>rather than fatalistically accepted. >>>It is more important that multi-stakeholderism works (and for us, >>>not just for the incumbent powers) rather than that it doesn't >>>rock the boat. And by "works", we mean that we need to have an >>>appreciable impact on shaping actual public policy decisions at a >>>global level. At the moment, we quite simply don't (research >>>presented at last year's workshop on "Identifying the Impact" >>>demonstrated this, and the UNSG's recent remarks also acknowledge it). >>>In fact there are many ways in which the power of governments and >>>other powerful actors to screw up the process can be >>>defused. I've written about these ad nauseum and I don't intend >>>to do so again here, but read again the summary I wrote for the >>>IGP for a refresher if you are interested ( >>>http://internetgovernance.org/pdf/MalcolmIGFReview.pdf). >>>With that out of the way, I'll re-lurk and leave you all to >>>continue these very productive and interesting discussions. >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sat Aug 21 20:02:51 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:02:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100821172635.05a62688@jefsey.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821172635.05a62688@jefsey.com> Message-ID: JFC and all, I'll try my best to respond to your main points and give a concise response, but they are numerous and interweaving is getting complicated, so I'll respond below to what I read as your core contentions, trusting you to correct as necessary. I conclude at bottom by suggesting that rapid progress 'on the ground' in specifics can be made, but it is enormously important what arguments are made and how issues are approached. (the mountain is climbable, but only has one two or three routes up, you can't go any old way...) First, like you among other things I write and speak about democracy and elections and political theory and talk to thousands of people about this each year. I've worked for state senators and congressional candidates, interned for US Senators, been elected to governing boards and appointed by Supreme Courts, etc. The most important of these is talking to the "real public" so to speak. Far from feeling "all alone" when I'm out among business and citizen groups like Kiwanis and the League of Women voters, I don't find anything but unqualified support and passion for these values, which are not given publicity by "the system" even remotely in proportion to the support they have. The only, and I do mean only, opposition I get is not from the intelligent or informed per se, but only the intelligent and informed who are in positions of power or would like to be (a large minority of "the leadership class" of all political persuasions). But, that's understandable in part because I "preach" accountability of governments and (rhetoric of accountability aside) nobody in government or industry likes to actually be accountable -- it feels like "harassment" of a sort even though it's justified -- makes people squirm like they're taking a test with one proctor for each test-taker. Then, most of the opposition I do find I woudl chalk up not to ill intent, but to personal experiences (which are, however, necessarily limited) that "educating the masses" is too difficult. I'll repeat that personal inconvenience or even doubt as to whether the education will work is no justification at all for denying a person's rights. As to rights, y ou've expressed some level of disbelief as to the power of human rights law. WHAT LAW IS HIGHER IN STATUS OR POWER? The ONLY difference that can account for other law prevailing is NOT the legal analysis -- about 159 countries have agreed most human rights laws are "inalienable" in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, meaning they can't be lost, forfeited or transferred even with the consent of a person. Inalienable also means that even Constitutional provisions, if in conflict, would have to yield to the right that cannot be lost - the inalienable right. The only thing that would account for human rights NOT prevailing is simply ignoring or suppressing human rights law on the basis of a personal preference that is extra-legal and in conflict with the most standard legal analysis. Thus, it's a matter of publicity and education ,so perhaps we agree on that. I'm doing that publicity and education and I have a very positive experience with my approach. APROACH matters enormously. I'm sure I don't have the only workable approach but there are many approaches that don't teach well. It is one thing to have intelligence, quite another to teach something, so I don't consider it an insult to anybody's intelligence or intent to observe, if it applies, that the teaching approach isn't effective. Sure, cultural factors, business pressures, etc., all factor in but they are not LEGALLY relevant to the analysis of what the 'highest' law is, and we have that law on our side, even if too many judges don't apply it. We unfortunately have to have historical perspective that civil rights advances are steady but usually incremental, yet the claims being made are always for the full measure of rights - half rights usually are not rights at all (like the right to be tortured only every other day) You asked me regarding human rights "Do I really believe this?'. Fully acknowledging that many who think they know better and wish to be de facto dictator or aristocrats are constantly working against it for reasons both good and bad, SURE I believe it. On two levels: the legal level and also in my mind (reason) and in my heart as well. The only reason I ponit to all the people who have died in wars for liberation/democracy is not declare that my cup of tea but to point to h ow intensely MANY people believe that yes, they too have rights, they too have dignity, and so ought every one else have dignity and a say. When the "say" is one person one vote, that's the core of democracy. It's also my experience, based on my offer to debate anyone anywhere who doesn't believe in democracy (at least in the US) that even when people accept, they later withdraw as they start to examine their own positions and the prospects of an internet streamed debate with a jury and the modest form of public accountability that creates. There is, admittedly, a "ton" of seeming force and bluster but when it gets examined in the limited kind of accountability that a debate forum offers, people chicken out of the task of attacking democracy as the sovereign law so to speak. This has little to do with me (except perhaps my angle of approach) and everything to do with the strength of democracy's arguments which were created by past generations and actually consciously intended to be principles that would be meaningful yet still last for "all posterity." I personally don't feel a need at all for an Article 31 on internet rights. It's a matter of applying existing law and principles to new facts. It's exactly what I used to do when I was a business law/consumer protection/ection law attorney for a decade or so, applying the consitution and laws of intellectual property to new contexts (technologies). Sure it's not the easiest task, but it's the kind of work a lot of people I know love to do. That being said, I'm not OPPOSED to a such a new article for the internet, but that puts enormous pressure to get it exactly right, so that the article is not just a symptom of a temporary misunderstanding of the fundamental rights at issue. No matter how detailed the new legal language might be, it is true beyond any doubt that talented lawyers can argue any and all language, so the fact that human rights laws are also argued and contested (sometimes) doesn't really indicate anything at all in terms of establishing the superiority of a more detailed specific text. Any such text would, in any event, have the burden of treaty ratification by about 159 countries just to get on the same legal level as human rights, in any event. I admit that I don't understand your idea of an "update" for democracy, it sounds like interior re-decoration. Fundamental principles like Equality can't be "updated', they can only be amended, and in the case of equality any amendment would be to create some inequality that's claimed legally justifiable, so I'd like to know what inequality is legally justtifiable. Democracy is also founded upon rule by "all the people" (Montesquieu) whereas aristocracies are by less than all the people Id., Spirit of the Laws. Here again, if the "update" occurs at this level, then it is government by less than all the people, and no lnoger democracy. The third fundamental axiom is nondelegation or nonabdication -- elected public servants can't simply transfer the power they've been given to their best friend, a favorite corporation, or even an agency (without clear standards to govern the delegation, in this last case) without violating the nondelegation doctrine -- which basically means that the people elected X, and they didn't elect Y. In the case of bureaucracies governed by sufficient standards passed democratically, that's not an impermissible "delegation" any more than a politician hiring a secretary is. If by "update" you mean simply applying rights to the internet technical context and coming up with rules partly or totally "translated" into the jargon of the internet so that netizens can understand, then my ponit above applies -- it's not necessary but could be desirable yet it's CRITICAL that the rights be translated correctly and fully, and not watered down as they currently are in stakeholder type situations. On the other hand if by "updated' you mean something more fundamental like a delegation of largely unaccountable power to internet captains of commerce, no matter how strongly motivated to benefit the public, that's not going to be democracy any more. The acid test is how do We the people (or netizens) "kick the bums out" who are governing the internet in our name? THis is also the acid test of freedom, because any people that cant' remove the powers that be are NOT free, they're totally subject to the will of "another" -the definition of a political slave. Whenever people suggest that democracy's outdated I need clarification, because IF they're "ok" with that, I'm not sure how they can be, unless they can explain why they're "ok" with not being Free. In such a case, everyone is either one of the ruled (a "subject" or "political slave' as it were) or else they are one of the Ruler(s). If we have only Rulers and the Ruled, then there are no 'rights' per se but only privileges, even if some might be "extended" privileges granted to many or even all by the largesse of some philosopher-king rulers (if such exist). But not matter how nice the privilege, it is constantly subject to removal without recourse at the will of the king or ruling class. The average person has no "rights" properly speaking. in that case, only privileges. If by democracy needing an "update" you, in effect, mean that we don't really have internet democracy, and the "update" to democracy is in fact just a way of making democracy real in this context, then you're not changing democracy per se at all in my mind, at least. In this case, in my opinion we ought to be be clear at all times that (a) we are not free, yet (b) by rights we ought to be free and democratic. The paradox of rights is that they become RECOGNIZED by ASSERTING them - they come into legal existence via legal argumentation that they *already* exist (whether agument is made to a judge or legislature). This makes sense because if the government GRANTS the most fundamental rights (as opposed to detail-based "statutory" rights) then those rights are insecure totally as against the first power-hungry government. That's why the law of democracy holds that fundamental inalienable rights come from Natural Law, or Reason, or the Creator, or the Supreme Ruler of the Universe (et al...) -- this allows atheists and theists into the same tent and the critical feature is that the source fo rights is beyond all governmental control. Thus, why do I have human rights? Because I was born human, that's way. No other conditions. Evn if countries violate human rights constantly,when under the spotlight they are virtually always forced to acknowledge the human rights, as evidenced by the treaty ratification in about 159 countries. Finally, there's cause for great hope in that public opinion exerts an independent force even in a dictatorship or monarchy (e.g. no dictator can long sustain a policy as against 90% public opposition that's firm, for example). Put another way, non-democratic conditions, of which we have many, in a sense only wrongfully impose a large supermajority requirement on the people in an unfree land, though this ability to change is limited to a given issue and generally doesn't extend at all to changing leaders. Here, every poll that I'm aware of (outside the "leadership" class in business and government) shows high supermajoritarian support for democracy and human rights as long as questions are framed even somewhat fairly. CONCLUSION: Most people do not know anything approaching a healthy understanding of law, including human rights law/democracy law. But using the usual formula of IRAC (Issue Rule Analysis Conclusion) of law school the basic principles and laws of human rights and democracy can be laid out as the rule(s), the "issue" is the facts of the internet, and the analysis and conclusion follow (within some range for reasonable debate) fairly readily so long as recourse is had to what Larry Tribe calls the "rich sea of principles" that inevitably and necessarily supplement any and all law even though they are unwritten. Like another recent poster wrote, we can make fairly rapid progress on more concrete things. I agree, and only insist that the most important laws/principles have a place at the "stakeholder" table. Does democracy have to beg, or will it be shut out of delberations there? Once at the table, if there's buy-in to democracy's principles in their entirety (and it would be risky to oppose them outright on a rollcall vote) then it's all downhill from tehre for net neutrality, provided only that we have enough internet "soldiers" to spread the word. The support for NN is out there, so it's really only a matter of organize, organize, organize ONCE the principles are coherently laid out. Technical applications of those principles, no matter if highly approved and very well drafted, h owever, will not excite the passion that it takes to win the battle to organize because they are not more or less self-verifying like democracy principles but instead rely upon a technical vocabulary, and are experiencing a bad case of vertigo induced by the rhetoric that the net changed everything (the same vertigo used in the USA regarding 9/11 to turn our country away from freedom). Paul Lehto, J.D. PS If anyone is interested in this topic, I'm happy to email privately or publicly to the list, but it may be best to discuss it on the phone, so that if I misunderstand I can be politely interrupted and saved from a tangent, and vice versa... - Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 22 06:54:16 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 06:24:16 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Message-ID: <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Aug 22 09:40:18 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 15:40:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Ginger I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwachter, who I think could hit the right political notes re: IGF renewal etc. Thanks, Bill On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone, > Thank you for the nominations of: > Valeria Betancourt (not confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla > > While these are two excellent candidates, I repeat my call for nominations for IGC Civil Society speakers for the opening and closing main sessions at the IGF Vilnius 2010. > > We are looking for excellent and representative speakers for CS as a first priority, and aim to help the balance of diversity in all of its facets in the program. I understand that it is taking time to confirm availability, but ask that nominations be submitted as soon as possible, as the IGF Secretariat needs to finalize the program and speakers. > > If you have any questions, do not hesitate to email me/Jeremy privately. > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/20/2010 1:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >> >> An excellent prospect! >> >> Carlton Samuels >> >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:43 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA >> Cc: 'Ginger Paque'; 'Fatimata Seye Sylla' >> Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing >> >> I am pasting Fatimata's short Bio here, for those who may not be able to receive the attachment: >> >> Fatimata Seye Sylla, Senegal (Africa) >> Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer Science from IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business Administration from CESAG, Dakar, the regional management school for Africa. >> >> After several years of experience in the field of ICT for development in Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the USAID/EDB project, in charge of the integration of ICTs in teaching/learning practices in Middle Schools for quality education in Senegal. >> >> Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in the fields of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and democracy and Internet Governance. She is a founder member of several associations (ISOC Senegal, OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, REGENTIC, Bokk Jang). She was nominated member of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also elected President of the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) in 2009. >> >> Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She also participated in all the IGF editions at the national, regional and international levels. >> >> >> >> On 8/20/2010 11:03 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >> Ginger, >> >> Now that Fatimata accepted the nomination, I attach her short Bio. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Tijani BEN JEMAA >> Vice Chairman of CIC >> World Federation of Engineering Organizations >> Phone : + 216 70 825 231 >> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 >> Fax : + 216 70 825 231 >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> De : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >> Envoyé : vendredi 20 août 2010 14:23 >> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fatimata Seye Sylla >> Cc : Ginger Paque >> Objet : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing >> >> Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. Could you please post a short bio and explain why you would be good for this speaking slot? You might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see below) >> Best, Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for CS interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive to what's going on and calibrated accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for "improvements." Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should be somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message. This relates to selecting nominees as well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these parameters. >> >> >> On 8/20/2010 8:45 AM, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: >> Hello Ginger, >> >> I accept Tijani's nomination! >> >> Best, >> Fatimata >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point noted, and nomination of Adam Peake noted. >> >> Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a refresher? >> >> Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM Bazlur Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla, Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make sure they are willing to speak, expect to be at the meeting, and post their one-paragraph bios? Additional nominations should do the same. >> >> Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing those named above. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: >> Dear Ginger Paque, >> Who will from Asia ? >> I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. >> With best regards, >> >> >> Bazlu >> _______________________ >> AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR >> Chief Executive Officer >> Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) >> [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] >> & >> Head, Community Radio Academy >> >> House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 >> Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh >> >> Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 >> Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 >> E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Ginger Paque >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim >> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM >> Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing >> >> Noted, McTim, thank you! >> >> Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger >> >> On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: >> I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> -- >> Fatimata Seye Sylla >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** 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 www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake *********************************************************** -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 22 12:47:39 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 12:47:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACEFC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> second ________________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 9:40 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Hi Ginger I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwachter, who I think could hit the right political notes re: IGF renewal etc. Thanks, Bill On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi everyone, Thank you for the nominations of: Valeria Betancourt (not confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla While these are two excellent candidates, I repeat my call for nominations for IGC Civil Society speakers for the opening and closing main sessions at the IGF Vilnius 2010. We are looking for excellent and representative speakers for CS as a first priority, and aim to help the balance of diversity in all of its facets in the program. I understand that it is taking time to confirm availability, but ask that nominations be submitted as soon as possible, as the IGF Secretariat needs to finalize the program and speakers. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to email me/Jeremy privately. Best, Ginger On 8/20/2010 1:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: An excellent prospect! Carlton Samuels From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:43 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: 'Ginger Paque'; 'Fatimata Seye Sylla' Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing I am pasting Fatimata's short Bio here, for those who may not be able to receive the attachment: Fatimata Seye Sylla, Senegal (Africa) Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer Science from IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business Administration from CESAG, Dakar, the regional management school for Africa. After several years of experience in the field of ICT for development in Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the USAID/EDB project, in charge of the integration of ICTs in teaching/learning practices in Middle Schools for quality education in Senegal. Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in the fields of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and democracy and Internet Governance. She is a founder member of several associations (ISOC Senegal, OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, REGENTIC, Bokk Jang). She was nominated member of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also elected President of the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) in 2009. Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She also participated in all the IGF editions at the national, regional and international levels. On 8/20/2010 11:03 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: Ginger, Now that Fatimata accepted the nomination, I attach her short Bio. ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________ De : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Envoyé : vendredi 20 août 2010 14:23 À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fatimata Seye Sylla Cc : Ginger Paque Objet : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. Could you please post a short bio and explain why you would be good for this speaking slot? You might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see below) Best, Ginger Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for CS interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive to what's going on and calibrated accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for "improvements." Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should be somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message. This relates to selecting nominees as well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these parameters. On 8/20/2010 8:45 AM, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: Hello Ginger, I accept Tijani's nomination! Best, Fatimata On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point noted, and nomination of Adam Peake noted. Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a refresher? Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM Bazlur Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla, Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make sure they are willing to speak, expect to be at the meeting, and post their one-paragraph bios? Additional nominations should do the same. Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing those named above. Best, Ginger On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: Dear Ginger Paque, Who will from Asia ? I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. With best regards, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Noted, McTim, thank you! Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. ________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Fatimata Seye Sylla ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** 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 www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Aug 22 17:08:25 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:08:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821172635.05a62688@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100822200004.05371ec0@jefsey.com> Paul, to try to go "fast" on this new (last?) round I interspread some comments. Do not take them as opposition. I understand our premises as different. Mine is that the Internet (and Internet related society) Constitution is in the (binary) code, and I feel yours is that the Consitution is in the voted codes and International declarations and treaties. Where we can join is in accepting that the binary code may have the voted code as specifications (what the WSIS missed due to the absurd political denial of participation of the IETF), provided lawmakers and developpers could talk to each others. This means that some in each group learn the other's language, that each group comprehend the increasing weight of the lead citizen users. i.e. users who are able to redesign technology to suit their own needs, who wish to do it for the best of their fellow citizens, and who are currently doing it (nobody can yet know if they will succeed or if they will not blow-up the Internet). The same as FLOSS does it for applications. At 02:02 22/08/2010, Paul Lehto wrote: >JFC and all, > >I'll try my best to respond to your main points and give a concise >response, but they are numerous and interweaving is getting >complicated, so I'll respond below to what I read as your core >contentions, trusting you to correct as necessary. I conclude at >bottom by suggesting that rapid progress 'on the ground' in specifics >can be made, but it is enormously important what arguments are made >and how issues are approached. (the mountain is climbable, but only >has one two or three routes up, you can't go any old way...) > >First, like you among other things I write and speak about democracy >and elections and political theory and talk to thousands of people >about this each year. I've worked for state senators and congressional >candidates, interned for US Senators, been elected to governing boards >and appointed by Supreme Courts, etc. For thirty years+ I talk to technicians, lead-users, private and public operators, and I also keep talking with end-users to check that what I say make sense to them, while I certainly accept and agree it does not make much sens to people in the middle. >The most important of these is >talking to the "real public" so to speak. Far from feeling "all >alone" I am feeling alone as a fighter/doer/builder. > when I'm out among business and citizen groups like Kiwanis and >the League of Women voters, I don't find anything but unqualified >support and passion for these values, which are not given publicity by >"the system" even remotely in proportion to the support they have. > >The only, and I do mean only, opposition I get is not from the >intelligent or informed per se, but only the intelligent and informed >who are in positions of power or would like to be (a large minority of >"the leadership class" of all political persuasions). :-) I understand. 15% of the American think they belong to the richest 1% of the population and 30% that they will belong soon. Opposition I get is more "interesting, but there are other matters (those I know or vote about or I control)". > But, that's >understandable in part because I "preach" accountability of >governments and (rhetoric of accountability aside) nobody in >government or industry likes to actually be accountable -- it feels >like "harassment" of a sort even though it's justified -- makes people >squirm like they're taking a test with one proctor for each >test-taker. > >Then, most of the opposition I do find I woudl chalk up not to ill >intent, but to personal experiences (which are, however, necessarily >limited) that "educating the masses" is too difficult. I'll repeat >that personal inconvenience or even doubt as to whether the education >will work is no justification at all for denying a person's rights. This is interesting. My own feeling is that the more educated is a person ignoring a subject (like the real nature of the technology impact), the more reluctant he/she is to learn from a "non-ignorant" educated fellow who would be his/her "teacher", and because there is no grarantee that the theory of that "non-ignorant" is the right one. While non-educated people start using the technology and understand quickly what a better design could be. >As to rights, y ou've expressed some level of disbelief as to the >power of human rights law. WHAT LAW IS HIGHER IN STATUS OR POWER? >The ONLY difference that can account for other law prevailing is NOT >the legal analysis -- about 159 countries have agreed most human >rights laws are "inalienable" in the Universal Declaration of Human >Rights, meaning they can't be lost, forfeited or transferred even with >the consent of a person. Inalienable also means that even >Constitutional provisions, if in conflict, would have to yield to the >right that cannot be lost - the inalienable right. The only thing that >would account for human rights NOT prevailing is simply ignoring or >suppressing human rights law on the basis of a personal preference >that is extra-legal and in conflict with the most standard legal >analysis. No! The first thing is that there is no human rights agreed upon for the digital ecosystem use. >Thus, it's a matter of publicity and education ,so perhaps >we agree on that. > >I'm doing that publicity and education and I have a very positive >experience with my approach. APROACH matters enormously. I'm sure I >don't have the only workable approach but there are many approaches >that don't teach well. It is one thing to have intelligence, quite >another to teach something, so I don't consider it an insult to >anybody's intelligence or intent to observe, if it applies, that the >teaching approach isn't effective. > >Sure, cultural factors, business pressures, etc., all factor in but >they are not LEGALLY relevant to the analysis of what the 'highest' >law is, and we have that law on our side, even if too many judges >don't apply it. We unfortunately have to have historical perspective >that civil rights advances are steady but usually incremental, yet the >claims being made are always for the full measure of rights - half >rights usually are not rights at all (like the right to be tortured >only every other day) > >You asked me regarding human rights "Do I really believe this?'. >Fully acknowledging that many who think they know better and wish to >be de facto dictator or aristocrats are constantly working against it >for reasons both good and bad, SURE I believe it. On two levels: the >legal level and also in my mind (reason) and in my heart as well. What I mean is that HR have shown to fail as a protection against mechan-isms. Revolutions or wars were necessary. >The only reason I ponit to all the people who have died in wars for >liberation/democracy is not declare that my cup of tea but to point to >h ow intensely MANY people believe that yes, they too have rights, >they too have dignity, and so ought every one else have dignity and a >say. > >When the "say" is one person one vote, that's the core of democracy. Yes, but this does not fit our now "anthrobotic" society. USA shown they did not depend on votes but on technical recounts. Democracy is a culture to adapt not a detailed process to freeze. The internet constitution's (binary code) laws are RFCs. For example, there is no king, no president, not vote to publish them. There is rough consensus. And as a IETF User, I disagree with this now: it was suitable for decentralized Internet, not for a distributed real extended word. We need multiconsensus, otherwise rough consensus is a democratic violation of the minorities (plurals) rights. I am not sure BTW that we consider the same "Internet": I extend it to all what facilitates intercomprehension, i.e. also the support of ambiant and active content and the cerebral and noetical semiotic and semantic (Intersem) convergence. Because this what I work on. >It's also my experience, based on my offer to debate anyone anywhere >who doesn't believe in democracy (at least in the US) that even when >people accept, they later withdraw as they start to examine their own >positions and the prospects of an internet streamed debate with a jury >and the modest form of public accountability that creates. There is, >admittedly, a "ton" of seeming force and bluster but when it gets >examined in the limited kind of accountability that a debate forum >offers, people chicken out of the task of attacking democracy as the >sovereign law so to speak. This has little to do with me (except >perhaps my angle of approach) and everything to do with the strength >of democracy's arguments which were created by past generations and >actually consciously intended to be principles that would be >meaningful yet still last for "all posterity." Again, you talk about a democratic culture, which today is trying hard to define what practical democracy may be in a 7 billion micro-sovereign-confederated States intergovernance. Technology brings humans a large number of specialised and powefull peripherals (physical, cognition, decision) that are to be taken into account. Democracy has lead to personal empowerment. That personal empowerment sometimes crosses the limits of citizenship and replaces democracy by diplomacy, policy, etc. and conflicts. The Internet is not a nation, it is an high-sea. Laws are different. There is no (elected) government of the world digital ecosystem, there may be concerted Governances. >I personally don't feel a need at all for an Article 31 on internet >rights. It's a matter of applying existing law and principles to new >facts. It's exactly what I used to do when I was a business >law/consumer protection/ection law attorney for a decade or so, >applying the consitution and laws of intellectual property to new >contexts (technologies). Sure it's not the easiest task, but it's the >kind of work a lot of people I know love to do. Sure. Lawyers. Enjoying their own technology. The same as engineers are enjoying keeping the Internet at the 1983 state of the art (no change until we introduced one, published through an illustration of it, a few days ago). >That being said, I'm >not OPPOSED to a such a new article for the internet, but that puts >enormous pressure to get it exactly right, so that the article is not >just a symptom of a temporary misunderstanding of the fundamental >rights at issue. Would you be afraid? People in the 18th Century wrote most, we introduced new ones as we need them. Could we not write this one? >No matter how detailed the new legal language might be, it is true >beyond any doubt that talented lawyers can argue any and all language, >so the fact that human rights laws are also argued and contested >(sometimes) doesn't really indicate anything at all in terms of >establishing the superiority of a more detailed specific text. Any >such text would, in any event, have the burden of treaty ratification >by about 159 countries just to get on the same legal level as human >rights, in any event. You are a lawyer! Why do you want this 31st article to be written by lawyers? It has to be written by people (we proposed one approach) then possibly helped by lawyers, politics, cultural entities, etc. etc. you know what? By a Civil Society Coalition. >I admit that I don't understand your idea of an "update" for >democracy, it sounds like interior re-decoration. Fundamental >principles like Equality can't be "updated', they can only be amended, >and in the case of equality any amendment would be to create some >inequality that's claimed legally justifiable, so I'd like to know >what inequality is legally justtifiable. That you do not understand how Equality is to be "updated" does not imply that it would have to be "amended" in its concept. It only means that we have to better make you understand what updated means. Let take an example: I am sure you would be upset if you were imposed non-updated Athenian democratic rules. These rules have been updated along centuries. The update we need is more important because the changes we known and will know are enormous. Michel Serres, a French philosopher with some good scientific/operational/cultural background (French Academy, former Naval Officer, etc.) has a formula I like (however I do not agree with all the premises): he talks of "hominescence", like there is "adolescence". He says the Homo Sapiens Sapiens is becoming the Homo Sapiens Universalis and even Homo Universalis. This does not mean that we are to physically/spiritually change, but that what others may perceive of us in our environment, facilitation apparatus and technically added capacities did change. >Democracy is also founded upon rule by "all the people" (Montesquieu) >whereas aristocracies are by less than all the people Id., Spirit of >the Laws. Here again, if the "update" occurs at this level, then it >is government by less than all the people, and no lnoger democracy. No. Today, governance is by more than all the people. This is our daily experience. Some of this "more" may be good for the people, some may be not. >The third fundamental axiom is nondelegation or nonabdication -- >elected public servants can't simply transfer the power they've been >given to their best friend, a favorite corporation, or even an agency >(without clear standards to govern the delegation, in this last case) >without violating the nondelegation doctrine -- which basically means >that the people elected X, and they didn't elect Y. In the case of >bureaucracies governed by sufficient standards passed democratically, >that's not an impermissible "delegation" any more than a politician >hiring a secretary is. This belongs to a Lawyers' doctrinal paradigm not interoperable with our today anthrobotic reality. Look, crisis is showing us that the very concept of money is to be updated. Something we did not actually do in 26 centuries. The concept of law is also to be updated. >If by "update" you mean simply applying rights to the internet >technical context and coming up with rules partly or totally >"translated" into the jargon of the internet so that netizens can >understand, then my ponit above applies -- it's not necessary but >could be desirable yet it's CRITICAL that the rights be translated >correctly and fully, and not watered down as they currently are in >stakeholder type situations. On the other hand if by "updated' you >mean something more fundamental like a delegation of largely >unaccountable power to internet captains of commerce, no matter how >strongly motivated to benefit the public, that's not going to be >democracy any more. Sophism. The choice is not between legal status-quo and industry status-quo, until united people of the world blow them up. The job is to keep the word running while insuring an equally enjoyed benefit and respect of every human. >The acid test is how do We the people (or netizens) "kick the bums >out" who are governing the internet in our name? THis is also the >acid test of freedom, because any people that cant' remove the powers >that be are NOT free, they're totally subject to the will of "another" >-the definition of a political slave. :-) This is something as I keep refering to as "e-colonization" under the US e-umbrella. Some have engaged in drastic move against their perceived roots of colonization, i.e. corruption. I feel that if we do not defuse this Spartacus revolt, it may contaminate the entire world, without much a result as the true solution is to by-pass corruption. The technological tools we now have may help (because technical standards work the same for all) because corruption is the failure of the law. BTW, this is why making NN a legal issue is dead-end. BTW no-one runs the Internet, but money runs the world the Internet is a part of. >Whenever people suggest that democracy's outdated I need >clarification, because IF they're "ok" with that, I'm not sure how >they can be, unless they can explain why they're "ok" with not being >Free. Today's version of democracy does not set anyone free. Tell me who you can name a Free person (in a democratic way) in the todays' world. This very capacity to be Free has to be restored. In broad part we lost it to technology. Either the technology is to be corrected and made our protection (and this can only result from non-impeached innovation) or technology must be removed. > In such a case, everyone is either one of the ruled (a >"subject" or "political slave' as it were) or else they are one of the >Ruler(s). If we have only Rulers and the Ruled, No. This is what has changed. There less and less Rulers and Ruled. There are autonomous entities which are or not permitted to proceed by subsidiarity - by would-love-to-be-rulers helped by an outdated social paradigm making them believe that they have to be ruled or out-laws. Robin Hoods is not an "out-law", he is a "robin", a master at a new law, fitting the Sherwood ecosystem. >then there are no >'rights' per se but only privileges, even if some might be "extended" >privileges granted to many or even all by the largesse of some >philosopher-king rulers (if such exist). But not matter how nice the >privilege, it is constantly subject to removal without recourse at the >will of the king or ruling class. The average person has no "rights" >properly speaking. in that case, only privileges. > >If by democracy needing an "update" you, in effect, mean that we don't >really have internet democracy, and the "update" to democracy is in >fact just a way of making democracy real in this context, then you're >not changing democracy per se at all in my mind, at least. In this >case, in my opinion we ought to be be clear at all times that (a) we >are not free, yet (b) by rights we ought to be free and democratic. This is dead end. Democracy was a vision from an other world of dialogue, hence for other kinds of people education and facilitation, means and issues. This is something we have to appropriately adapt to our mainly technically facilited polylogue world. >The paradox of rights is that they become RECOGNIZED by ASSERTING them >- they come into legal existence via legal argumentation that they >*already* exist (whether agument is made to a judge or legislature). >This makes sense because if the government GRANTS the most fundamental >rights (as opposed to detail-based "statutory" rights) then those >rights are insecure totally as against the first power-hungry >government. That's why the law of democracy holds that fundamental >inalienable rights come from Natural Law, or Reason, or the Creator, >or the Supreme Ruler of the Universe (et al...) -- this allows >atheists and theists into the same tent and the critical feature is >that the source fo rights is beyond all governmental control. This is what is interesting in our time. What I name personnally the ALFA Wager (http://wikalfa.org/wiki/Le_%22pari%22_d%27ALFA_-_the_ALFA_wager). Our pratical capacities come from the machines we build. And in coming years from the machines we teach. So, more and more, the protection of our rights will depend on the way we tell our machines our universe is. If we explain it right we will control our machines, otherwise the one who will explain them his leadership will control us. So we are better to be convincing, i.e. coherent. Truth is what man looks for, consistency is what machines needs. There are chances that if we tell the Truth to our machines, this architectony will help them to be more efficient and protect us better. Mechanical selection :-) >Thus, why do I have human rights? Because I was born human, that's >way. No other conditions. Evn if countries violate human rights >constantly,when under the spotlight they are virtually always forced >to acknowledge the human rights, as evidenced by the treaty >ratification in about 159 countries. Today, social engineering is a tool to use democracy to violate the humanity rights. Better doing something about it :-) >Finally, there's cause for great hope in that public opinion exerts an >independent force even in a dictatorship or monarchy (e.g. no dictator >can long sustain a policy as against 90% public opposition that's >firm, for example). There is no opposition between dictatorship and monarchy on one side and democracy on the other side (ex. Rome and UK). The opposition is with tyranny. This remark of yours denotes an intellectual bias in your democratic analysis. > Put another way, non-democratic conditions, of >which we have many, in a sense only wrongfully impose a large >supermajority requirement on the people in an unfree land, though this >ability to change is limited to a given issue and generally doesn't >extend at all to changing leaders. Here, every poll that I'm aware of >(outside the "leadership" class in business and government) shows high >supermajoritarian support for democracy and human rights as long as >questions are framed even somewhat fairly. No. Even in Zimbabwe, or in China, or in North-Korea supermajority has no legal weight. What has practical weight is a coup. A coup can be carried in many ways, anytime. Usually by small groups or one single person. IDNA2008 was such a coup. A specialist was Gandhi who said: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". This is exactly what happened. Now we have to take advantage from the victory. And this calls for help. >CONCLUSION: Most people do not know anything approaching a healthy >understanding of law, including human rights law/democracy law. But >using the usual formula of IRAC (Issue Rule Analysis Conclusion) of >law school the basic principles and laws of human rights and democracy >can be laid out as the rule(s), the "issue" is the facts of the >internet, and the analysis and conclusion follow (within some range >for reasonable debate) fairly readily so long as recourse is had to >what Larry Tribe calls the "rich sea of principles" that inevitably >and necessarily supplement any and all law even though they are >unwritten. This is the issue. This sea of principles has extended through technology, both by what it brought, and by its common facilitation of the person's good and bad actions. >Like another recent poster wrote, we can make fairly rapid progress on >more concrete things. I agree, and only insist that the most >important laws/principles have a place at the "stakeholder" table. >Does democracy have to beg, or will it be shut out of delberations >there? As always in inovation processes: there is first iteration, if too slow this may encourage disruptive revolutions that we may avoid by better architectural comprehension. Multistakholderism is an interesting post-democratic move, but the way it is applied at the IGF is a HR violation since people as such are not acknowledged stakeholders. >Once at the table, if there's buy-in to democracy's principles in >their entirety (and it would be risky to oppose them outright on a >rollcall vote) then it's all downhill from tehre for net neutrality, >provided only that we have enough internet "soldiers" to spread the >word. The support for NN is out there, You do not send people to a battle without amunitions. The first amunition in this case is a standing definition of NN that everyone can understand: lawyers, people, politics, Govs, international institutions, users, and engineers alike. >so it's really only a matter >of organize, organize, organize ONCE the principles are coherently >laid out. Technical applications of those principles, no matter if >highly approved and very well drafted, h owever, will not excite the >passion that it takes to win the battle to organize because they are >not more or less self-verifying like democracy principles but instead >rely upon a technical vocabulary, and are experiencing a bad case of >vertigo induced by the rhetoric that the net changed everything (the >same vertigo used in the USA regarding 9/11 to turn our country away >from freedom). Sophism. There are at least two parties in your scenario: lawyers and engineers. Dont reproach engineers what lawyers are doing. Nobody serious claims that the net changed anything by itself. Everything is changing and the net is a part of that change. If it was not needed it would not be used. The change creates the need, which is addressed by the Internet proposititon and satisfied by the use. IMHObservation, it seems that what has really changed is the size of the crew of the Spaceship Earth. This had consequences. The same kind of changes as when the Athenian democracy was copied by much larger states. >Paul Lehto, J.D. > >PS If anyone is interested in this topic, I'm happy to email privately >or publicly to the list, but it may be best to discuss it on the >phone, so that if I misunderstand I can be politely interrupted and >saved from a tangent, and vice versa... Phone is appropriate for lobbyists, not for research. Specially concerning the most important issue for a 7 billion people world with at least 22.000 identified language entities! My intellectual teasing is just for some to actively consider the issues in the light of the WSIS consensus, direction, majors contributions and missing points. Let me return to my pet hobby: to understand the Universe from the Internet experience, and in turn to make the Internet "work better" in better matching the Universe's meta-laws. Best jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Sun Aug 22 18:01:05 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 19:01:05 -0300 Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <00a101cb4245$9b9a04d0$d2ce0e70$@com.br> May be now there will be "environment" for write messages as an outcome to keep general interest in IGF I believe messages to be treated by regional meetings and there get some recommendations, may the a good path to follow... Best to all Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 Tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob: + 55 11 8181 1464 -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 4:11 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria; IGC Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. Parminder: I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of the IGF (the latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that IGF gives out 'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does). Wolfgang: It was me who proposed in the first MAG meeting after Athens (February 2007) to "invented" a new category of "outcome" which has not the political bagagae of a "recommendation" in the UN context. A"recommendation" is a negotiated text and you need a "drafting group" wehre all parties are represented in a balanced way. If you would start within a four day meeting with "negotiations" you unavoidably destroy any type of discussion. Parties will start to fight there there "fixed position" is reflected in the final document and the struggle goes around language which is so general that all parties feel that they have won. The formula "enhanced cooperation" is a very god example. With other words: You have an "outcome" but it is meaningless. To avoid this and to move forward to the discussion of substance you have to avoid such a type of negotiations where "word smithing" is more important than the issue. I understand that people want to take something home after a meeting. And they are not satisfied if they have only the Chairman´s summary and the thousands of pages of the transcripts (which are nevertheless importanten) Against this background I proposed in the MAG 1. to produce readable proceedings in form of an "IGF book" what you can take home (free of charge), distribute to friends and put on your bookshelf (and read again if needed) and 2. to introduce as a new (undefined) category the formulaiton of "messages" as a light weight outcome from a discussion and as a visible "output" from the meeting. My idea with the message was (and is) that each convenor/raporteur of a plenary or workshop formlates at the end of the session one or two (or three as a maximm) key conclusions and summarizes this in form of short messages. This is normally the case in each meeting but so far there is no mechanism in place to channel this type of conclusions to a audience beyond the peole sitting in the rom. These conclusions can be controversial messages (one party said so and another party said so) but it has to be concrete, precise, cover a key aspect and has to be also short (not longer than three lines/similar to the length restrictions you know from twitter). But the most important point is it would a non-negotiated text. No drafting group needed. If you have 80 workshops and plenaries you will get around 160 messages from 80 perople which avoids that one party overtake or capture the formulation of the messages. Certainly this will enhance the responsiblity of the raporteur (and the procedure to nominate a rapporteur). I remember very well the discussion in the MAG in February and May 2007. The Brazilians wanted to have something like a "Rio de Janeiro IGF Declaration". Bilcaho, the Brazilian governmental representative, was excited in the beginning to have "IGF Messages from Rio de Janeiro". But for a number of reasons, it did not work for Rio (and not for the following IGFs). When we launched EURODIG, it was easier to convince the core team to think about "messages" as an alternative to "recommendations". And it workd in Strasbourg in 2008, where "Messages from Strasbourg" where produced "bottom up" and the core team just made some final polishment but did not change the substance of the messages which came from the rapporteurs of the various sessions. The same happend with the "EURODIG Geneva Messages from 2009" and now with the "2010 EURODIG Madrid Messages". The same thing happend with the German IGF where we produced a one page "IGF-D Messages from Berlin" out of four sessions. Why I go back to the history? The lesson here is that nothing will happen when you introduce it for the first time. If something is new, it takes time that others are convinced. And as Avri has pointed out, it is an evolutionary process which evolves bottom up. I am convinced that the idea of "messages" - if they continue to proof to be a useful outcome from regional and national IGFs - will be also attractive - sooner or later - for the global IGF. Best wishes 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 22 18:51:31 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 18:51:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100822200004.05371ec0@jefsey.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821172635.05a62688@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100822200004.05371ec0@jefsey.com> Message-ID: Seeing that we agree on the most important point *Your E-colonization appears equivalent in essence to my "acid test for freedom". the bulk of the rest is mostly to the benefit of additional perspective (ir difference therein) or experience, or addition of new angles or insights. Although you say you derive your fundamental principles from different sources (internet binary "code" vs. legal "code") the way I 'hear' what you're saying about the universal principles of the internet is highly suggestive (to me) that your keen observations about the HUMAN intelligence and creativity and behavior on the internet or in relation to it is a language you can expertly read into evidence of human nature, etc. That may not be the most global and precise summary of your position, but the point I'm leading to stands nevertheless, I think, especially since I've grounded it in my own personal feeling! :) And that is that you observe natural justice and its corruptions via the most salient aspects of the internet, and I observe them through not so much law (although that's included) but political theory and philosophy on the nature of Aristotle's "politcal animal" as "updated" by the ages. But, if true, then that means that we are aiming for the same star as our guide, and even though we expect not to reach that guidestar, like a mariner without the stars (compass and astrolabe) we would be lost indeed without the star to give us direction. And that "star" is very near the following, perhaps the shortest illustration of what I think democracy "means" but clearly that word has too much baggage for some discussions because too many crimes have been committed in the name of democracy. (I always separate the idea from its imperfect implementations or corrupt implementations, as you might expect). FWIW I'm a former lawyer (best kind) and I don't defend legal monopolies or co-optation by the law of terms like NN and mis-defining them in legislation to confuse and monkeywrench the whole thing, by accident or intention.... At the same time, it borders on or is foolhardy to ignore lawyers when thinking or acting about law, just as in ignoring accountants about accounting or developers and programmers about the internet. As applied to the internet, both lawyers and developers/programmers and users and others all have a closeup view of some patch of skin on the internet elephant. All are therefore needed, and no sense debating about who has the rear end patch of the elephant. Every profession thinks itself the center of the universe: Chemists say its all atoms, biologists say its all DNA, engineers think nothing exists in civilization without them, lawyers provide the frameworks for every contract the engineers signed and possible rights to achieve in the first place, physicians think we'd all be dead without their help, and finally psychiatrists say "it's all in our head and how we look at it." This is an attempt at rephrasing a joke I heard, but it points to both humor and that we all have a patch on the elephant of human nature. I've pasted in that brief exchange about the acid test for freedom below. As long as we retain nonviolent methods of "kicking the bums out" and it's one person one vote and no adults are disfranchised, then that to me is what I'm thinking of when I say "democracy" and the corruptions of democracy are no different (to me) in general nature than someone committing a crime and claiming the Pope ordered him to do it via his radio. Like you said, don't interpret your comments as opposition, and so I don't. You probably know that this way I will think about them longer than if that were not the case! ;) On 8/22/10, JFC Morfin wrote: >>[Lehto]The acid test is how do We the people (or netizens) "kick the bums >>out" who are governing the internet in our name? THis is also the >>acid test of freedom, because any people that cant' remove the powers >>that be are NOT free, they're totally subject to the will of "another" >>-the definition of a political slave. > > [JFC Mortin] :-) This is something as I keep refering to as "e-colonization" under > the US e-umbrella. Some have engaged in drastic move against their > perceived roots of colonization, i.e. corruption. I feel that if we > do not defuse this Spartacus revolt, it may contaminate the entire > world, without much a result as the true solution is to by-pass > corruption. The technological tools we now have may help (because > technical standards work the same for all) because corruption is the > failure of the law. BTW, this is why making NN a legal issue is dead-end. -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Aug 22 20:38:56 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:08:56 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C71C320.8090205@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Aug 22 20:55:13 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:55:13 +1000 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C71C320.8090205@gmail.com> Message-ID: Just to move this along - If you are shy of self nomination, I am very happy to nominate people if they want to indicate to me that they will be attending and wish to be considered (if I don’t feel I can do so in your particular case I’ll let you know privately!) Ian Peter From: Ginger Paque Reply-To: , Ginger Paque Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 20:08:56 -0430 To: William Drake Cc: , Wolfgang Kleinw‰chter , Valeria Betancourt Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Thanks Bill, Wolfgang, and Valeria, could you  please confirm your acceptance of the nominations? We now have: Valeria Betancourt (not confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla Wolfgang Kleinwachter (not confirmed) Best, Ginger On 8/22/2010 9:10 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Ginger > > > > I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwachter, who I think could hit the right political > notes re: IGF renewal etc. > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Bill > > > > > On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > >> >> Hi everyone, >> Thank you for the nominations of: >> Valeria Betancourt (not confirmed) >> Fatimata Seye Sylla >> >> While these are two excellent candidates, I repeat my call for nominations >> for IGC Civil Society speakers for the opening and closing main sessions at >> the IGF Vilnius 2010. >> >> We are looking for excellent and representative speakers for CS as a first >> priority, and aim to help the balance of diversity in all of its facets in >> the program. I understand that it is taking time to confirm availability, but >> ask that nominations be submitted as soon as possible, as the IGF Secretariat >> needs to finalize the program and speakers. >> >> If you have any questions, do not hesitate to email me/Jeremy privately. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> On 8/20/2010 1:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> An excellent prospect! >>> >>>   >>> >>> Carlton Samuels >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:43 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA >>> Cc: 'Ginger Paque'; 'Fatimata Seye Sylla' >>> Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and >>> closing >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> I am pasting Fatimata's short Bio here, for those who may not be able to >>> receive the attachment: >>> >>> Fatimata Seye Sylla, Senegal (Africa) >>> >>> Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab at >>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer Science from >>> IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business Administration from CESAG, >>> Dakar, the regional management school for Africa. >>> >>> >>> After several years of experience in the field of ICT for development in >>> Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the USAID/EDB project, in >>> charge of the integration of ICTs in teaching/learning practices in Middle >>> Schools for quality education in Senegal. >>> >>> >>> Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in the fields >>> of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and democracy and Internet >>> Governance. She is a founder member of several associations (ISOC Senegal, >>> OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, REGENTIC, Bokk Jang). She was nominated member of the >>> ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also >>> elected President of the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) in >>> 2009. >>> >>> >>> Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information Society >>> (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She also participated in >>> all the IGF editions at the national, regional and international levels. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/20/2010 11:03 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >>> >>> Ginger, >>> >>>   >>> >>> Now that Fatimata accepted the nomination, I attach her short Bio. >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> Tijani BEN JEMAA >>> >>> >>> Vice Chairman of CIC >>> >>> >>> World Federation of Engineering Organizations >>> >>> >>> Phone : + 216 70 825 231 >>> >>> >>> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 >>> >>> >>> Fax     : + 216 70 825 231 >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> De : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> Envoyé : vendredi 20 août 2010 14:23 >>> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fatimata Seye Sylla >>> Cc : Ginger Paque >>> Objet : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. Could you >>> please post a short bio and explain why you would be good for this speaking >>> slot? You might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see >>> below) >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be >>> renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in >>> intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for CS >>> interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive to >>> what's going on and calibrated accordingly.  Presumably it would be a bad >>> idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are >>> pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the >>> case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive >>> manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for >>> "improvements."  Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should be >>> somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even >>> coordinate a bit on the message.  This relates to selecting nominees as >>> well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions >>> (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these >>> parameters. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/20/2010 8:45 AM, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger, >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I accept Tijani's nomination! >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Fatimata >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point noted, and >>> nomination of Adam Peake noted. >>> >>> Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a refresher? >>> >>> Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM Bazlur >>> Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla, >>> Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make sure they are willing to >>> speak, expect to be at the meeting, and post their one-paragraph bios? >>> Additional nominations should do the same. >>> >>> Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing those named >>> above. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Dear Ginger Paque , >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Who will from Asia ? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> With best regards, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Bazlu >>> _______________________ >>> AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR >>> Chief Executive Officer >>> Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) >>> [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social >>> Council] >>> & >>> Head, Community Radio Academy >>>   >>> House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 >>> Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh >>>   >>> Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 >>> Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 >>> E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>   >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: Ginger Paque >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and >>>> closing >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>   >>>> >>>> >>>> Noted, McTim, thank you! >>>> >>>> Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those who are >>>> not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger >>>> >>>> On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. >>>> >>>>   >>>> >>>>   >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fatimata Seye Sylla >>>> >>>>       >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake >>> *********************************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sun Aug 22 22:02:51 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:02:51 +0700 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C71D6CB.5060104@gmx.net> I share this suggestion to nominate Wolfgang Kleinwaechter in view of the IGF renewal issue - he has been involved in the recent regional (informal) IGF consultations, not only in Europe, but also in Asia. I say so because I think the Vilnius meeting - though not a decision making body - will provide crucial input into the debate about the future of the IGF (where many of our various, other concerns are located). Norbert Klein = On 08/22/2010 08:40 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi Ginger > > I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwachter, who I think could hit the right > political notes re: IGF renewal etc. > > Thanks, > > Bill > > On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> Thank you for the nominations of: >> Valeria Betancourt (not confirmed) >> Fatimata Seye Sylla >> >> While these are two excellent candidates, I repeat my call for >> nominations for IGC Civil Society speakers for the opening and >> closing main sessions at the IGF Vilnius 2010. >> >> We are looking for excellent and representative speakers for CS as a >> first priority, and aim to help the balance of diversity in all of >> its facets in the program. I understand that it is taking time to >> confirm availability, but ask that nominations be submitted as soon >> as possible, as the IGF Secretariat needs to finalize the program and >> speakers. >> >> If you have any questions, do not hesitate to email me/Jeremy privately. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> On 8/20/2010 1:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>> >>> An excellent prospect! >>> >>> >>> >>> Carlton Samuels >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> *Sent:* Friday, August 20, 2010 10:43 AM >>> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA >>> *Cc:* 'Ginger Paque'; 'Fatimata Seye Sylla' >>> *Subject:* Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening >>> and closing >>> >>> >>> >>> I am pasting Fatimata's short Bio here, for those who may not be >>> able to receive the attachment: >>> >>> *Fatimata Seye Sylla, Senegal (Africa)* >>> >>> Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab at >>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer >>> Science from IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business >>> Administration from CESAG, Dakar, the regional management school for >>> Africa. >>> >>> After several years of experience in the field of ICT for >>> development in Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the >>> USAID/EDB project, in charge of the integration of ICTs in >>> teaching/learning practices in Middle Schools for quality education >>> in Senegal. >>> >>> Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in the >>> fields of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and democracy >>> and Internet Governance. She is a founder member of several >>> associations (ISOC Senegal, OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, REGENTIC, Bokk >>> Jang). She was nominated member of the ICANN At-Large Advisory >>> Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also elected President >>> of the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) in 2009. >>> >>> Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information >>> Society (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She also >>> participated in all the IGF editions at the national, regional and >>> international levels. >>> >>> >>> -- 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 of the Mirror: Words Can Reveal or Obscure Sunday, 15.8.2010 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1E6 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 02:47:17 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:47:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C71D6CB.5060104@gmx.net> Message-ID: <138A5715AE994629907E4D7DBD03555E@userPC> I'ld like to suggest Parminder for one of these slots (for the same reasons as Norbert... Mike -----Original Message----- From: Norbert Klein [mailto:nhklein at gmx.net] Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 7:03 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing I share this suggestion to nominate Wolfgang Kleinwaechter in view of the IGF renewal issue - he has been involved in the recent regional (informal) IGF consultations, not only in Europe, but also in Asia. I say so because I think the Vilnius meeting - though not a decision making body - will provide crucial input into the debate about the future of the IGF (where many of our various, other concerns are located). Norbert Klein = On 08/22/2010 08:40 PM, William Drake wrote: Hi Ginger I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwachter, who I think could hit the right political notes re: IGF renewal etc. Thanks, Bill On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: Hi everyone, Thank you for the nominations of: Valeria Betancourt (not confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla While these are two excellent candidates, I repeat my call for nominations for IGC Civil Society speakers for the opening and closing main sessions at the IGF Vilnius 2010. We are looking for excellent and representative speakers for CS as a first priority, and aim to help the balance of diversity in all of its facets in the program. I understand that it is taking time to confirm availability, but ask that nominations be submitted as soon as possible, as the IGF Secretariat needs to finalize the program and speakers. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to email me/Jeremy privately. Best, Ginger On 8/20/2010 1:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: An excellent prospect! Carlton Samuels From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:43 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA Cc: 'Ginger Paque'; 'Fatimata Seye Sylla' Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing I am pasting Fatimata's short Bio here, for those who may not be able to receive the attachment: Fatimata Seye Sylla, Senegal (Africa) Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer Science from IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business Administration from CESAG, Dakar, the regional management school for Africa. After several years of experience in the field of ICT for development in Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the USAID/EDB project, in charge of the integration of ICTs in teaching/learning practices in Middle Schools for quality education in Senegal. Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in the fields of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and democracy and Internet Governance. She is a founder member of several associations (ISOC Senegal, OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, REGENTIC, Bokk Jang). She was nominated member of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also elected President of the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) in 2009. Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She also participated in all the IGF editions at the national, regional and international levels. -- 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 of the Mirror: Words Can Reveal or Obscure Sunday, 15.8.2010 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1E6 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 02:47:17 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:47:17 -0700 Subject: [governance] Nomination Message-ID: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> I'ld like to suggest Parminder as one of the CS presenters. Mike ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Mon Aug 23 04:02:14 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:02:14 +0600 Subject: [governance] Nomination In-Reply-To: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> References: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> Message-ID: <20100823080249.908DA9028C@npogroups.org> Second. At 12:47 PM 8/23/2010, Michael Gurstein wrote: >I'ld like to suggest Parminder as one of the CS presenters. > >Mike > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Mon Aug 23 04:11:21 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:11:21 +0600 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and In-Reply-To: <4C71D6CB.5060104@gmx.net> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> <4C71D6CB.5060104@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20100823081153.5CB6E9027A@npogroups.org> I support Bill and Norbert for nominating Wolfgang on the IGF renewal issues and regional consultation processes. Hakikur Rahman At 08:02 AM 8/23/2010, Norbert Klein wrote: >I share this suggestion to nominate Wolfgang Kleinwaechter in view >of the IGF renewal issue - he has been involved in the recent >regional (informal) IGF consultations, not only in Europe, but also in Asia. > >I say so because I think the Vilnius meeting - though not a decision >making body - will provide crucial input into the debate about the >future of the IGF (where many of our various, other concerns are located). > > >Norbert Klein > >= > > >On 08/22/2010 08:40 PM, William Drake wrote: >>Hi Ginger >> >>I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwachter, who I think could hit the right >>political notes re: IGF renewal etc. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Bill >> >>On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>>Hi everyone, >>>Thank you for the nominations of: >>>Valeria Betancourt (not confirmed) >>>Fatimata Seye Sylla >>> >>>While these are two excellent candidates, I repeat my call for >>>nominations for IGC Civil Society speakers for the opening and >>>closing main sessions at the IGF Vilnius 2010. >>> >>>We are looking for excellent and representative speakers for CS as >>>a first priority, and aim to help the balance of diversity in all >>>of its facets in the program. I understand that it is taking time >>>to confirm availability, but ask that nominations be submitted as >>>soon as possible, as the IGF Secretariat needs to finalize the >>>program and speakers. >>> >>>If you have any questions, do not hesitate to email me/Jeremy privately. >>> >>>Best, Ginger >>> >>>On 8/20/2010 1:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>>>An excellent prospect! >>>> >>>>Carlton Samuels >>>> >>>>From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>>>Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:43 AM >>>>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; >>>>Tijani BEN JEMAA >>>>Cc: 'Ginger Paque'; 'Fatimata Seye Sylla' >>>>Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening >>>>and closing >>>> >>>>I am pasting Fatimata's short Bio here, for those who may not be >>>>able to receive the attachment: >>>> >>>>Fatimata Seye Sylla, Senegal (Africa) >>>> >>>>Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab >>>>at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer >>>>Science from IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business >>>>Administration from CESAG, Dakar, the regional management school for Africa. >>>> >>>>After several years of experience in the field of ICT for >>>>development in Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the >>>>USAID/EDB project, in charge of the integration of ICTs in >>>>teaching/learning practices in Middle Schools for quality >>>>education in Senegal. >>>> >>>>Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in >>>>the fields of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and >>>>democracy and Internet Governance. She is a founder member of >>>>several associations (ISOC Senegal, OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, >>>>REGENTIC, Bokk Jang). She was nominated member of the ICANN >>>>At-Large Advisory Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and >>>>also elected President of the African Regional At-Large >>>>Organisation (AFRALO) in 2009. >>>> >>>>Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information >>>>Society (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She >>>>also participated in all the IGF editions at the national, >>>>regional and international levels. >>>> > > >-- >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 of the Mirror: > >Words Can Reveal or Obscure >Sunday, 15.8.2010 > >http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1E6 >(to read it, click on the line above.) > >And here is something new every day: >http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 04:17:14 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:17:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Nomination In-Reply-To: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> References: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> Message-ID: OK for Parminder SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2010/8/23 Michael Gurstein > > I'ld like to suggest Parminder as one of the CS presenters. > > Mike > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Mon Aug 23 03:17:40 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:17:40 +0600 Subject: [governance] Nomination References: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> Message-ID: <2E8CD59A029D48489DE278E8C1DFB6A9@ceo> I strongly support to Mike proposal regarding Parminder as one of the CS presenters Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] & Head, Community Radio Academy House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Gurstein" To: Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:47 PM Subject: [governance] Nomination > > I'ld like to suggest Parminder as one of the CS presenters. > > Mike > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Aug 23 06:46:15 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:46:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821172635.05a62688@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100822200004.05371ec0@jefsey.com> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100823103833.04fc07c8@jefsey.com> At 00:51 23/08/2010, Paul Lehto wrote: >Seeing that we agree on the most important point *Your E-colonization >appears equivalent in essence to my "acid test for freedom". the bulk >of the rest is mostly to the benefit of additional perspective (ir >difference therein) or experience, or addition of new angles or >insights. Correct. This is why I believe this can be an area of research. >Although you say you derive your fundamental principles from different >sources (internet binary "code" vs. legal "code") the way I 'hear' >what you're saying about the universal principles of the internet is >highly suggestive (to me) that your keen observations about the HUMAN >intelligence and creativity and behavior on the internet or in >relation to it is a language you can expertly read into evidence of >human nature, etc. Correct. The difference is that your source leads you to write in plain legal texts, while mine is to write it in plain standardization text, i.e. high-level binary code. Since it is about the same matter and that reticular writting is currently taking the lead on document writting, I suggest that more transdisciplinarity is advisable. > That may not be the most global and precise >summary of your position, but the point I'm leading to stands >nevertheless, I think, especially since I've grounded it in my own >personal feeling! :) And that is that you observe natural justice and >its corruptions via the most salient aspects of the internet, and I >observe them through not so much law (although that's included) but >political theory and philosophy on the nature of Aristotle's "politcal >animal" as "updated" by the ages. But, if true, then that means that >we are aiming for the same star as our guide, and even though we >expect not to reach that guidestar, like a mariner without the stars >(compass and astrolabe) we would be lost indeed without the star to >give us direction. Except that I am a seaman and I do prefer feeling the hull of my cybship bold and stable under my shoes :-) >And that "star" is very near the following, perhaps the shortest >illustration of what I think democracy "means" but clearly that word >has too much baggage for some discussions because too many crimes have >been committed in the name of democracy. (I always separate the idea >from its imperfect implementations or corrupt implementations, as you >might expect). Yes. This is why I think the term "polycracy" is the correct word to use, which involves the person at the core, its respect, democracy and intergovernance capacities at its periphery. Actually, polycracy is the democacy of the universal aristocracy we build. >FWIW I'm a former lawyer (best kind) and I don't defend legal >monopolies or co-optation by the law of terms like NN and mis-defining >them in legislation to confuse and monkeywrench the whole thing, by >accident or intention.... I understand. I consider lawyers as engineers. This is all the more true when we migrate to artificial semantic processors to assist our personnal HSSP (Homo Sappiens Semantic Processor) and in the process to still learn more about ourselves. However, - all of us should be transdiciplinarians if to understand, know and comprehend the world. - juges of our legal disputes will more and more be true machines (at least the Juges' facilitation processors). >At the same time, it borders on or is >foolhardy to ignore lawyers when thinking or acting about law, just as >in ignoring accountants about accounting or developers and programmers >about the internet. This is why the 31st article should be written by the people (as RFC 3935 about the IETF mission states: "The Internet is a global phenomenon. The people interested in its evolution are from every culture under the sun and from all walks of life."). But edited by semantician lawyers to be applied by semantic processors supporting Human Free Will. >Every profession thinks itself the center of the universe. The WSIS (which legitimated this dynamic coalition and gave it its road map), considers that people are the center of the Universe, in their diversity. Something, out of Einstein cosmological principle, we made carved in RFCs now. >I've pasted in that brief exchange about the acid test for freedom >below. As long as we retain nonviolent methods - this really depends on our speed in addressing the people real needs. The financial crisis, the job current mismanagement, etc. do not make me optimistic the people will have the time to accept the necessary evolutions. >of "kicking the bums >out" and it's one person one vote - too limited as a conception. Not easy to work out. However, today one person one vote is a democratic concept, not a democratic practicality without an equal education. Votes should probably be differently cast, depending on the voter's related awareness (as a protection against non-democratic manipultations). This is nothing to do with "one person one vote", but with the increased complexity of what one is asked to vote for: people, decision, choices, area/scopes, etc. Often responses are correct but undecipherable because questions are not. This is self-destroying. > and no adults are disfranchised, This is anti-democratic!!! Everyone is a person and kids should vote by proxy. Most of the decisions affect their whole life while they only affect the end of the voters life. >then that to me is what I'm thinking of when I say "democracy" and the >corruptions of democracy are no different (to me) in general nature >than someone committing a crime and claiming the Pope ordered him to >do it via his radio. > >Like you said, don't interpret your comments as opposition, and so I >don't. You probably know that this way I will think about them longer >than if that were not the case! ;) The real issue is that more and more we have to take decisions no one knows about the result. Democracy cannot help in such cases, so democracies rely on "experts". This is wrong because giving the most important adminance decisions to experts makes the world environment decided by engineers. Look. Introducing the subsidiarity principle and changing the nature of the Internet, freeing the world from the operational control of who "runs the net" was practically a very very limited decision. It was to say that the use or non-use of the arabic Tatweel non-character (it is used for justification) was decided by the Internet side or the User side of the software being used. One single line of code apart. On the Internet side, the world was American, on the user side the world was free. It took ten years to make it an RFC. This detail hides ten years of work, fight, evangelization, market consideration, technical threads. In this endeavor we were supported by a very few humanist engineers and teachers. By no-one else. It will take years more and the support of a larger number for making it an accepted reality. If I now created my own research adventure, it only is for our work to stay in the public domain and not be copyrighted by the lawyers of the EISOCANN enhanced-cooperation (IETF Trust by ISOC). >On 8/22/10, JFC Morfin wrote: > >>[Lehto]The acid test is how do We the people (or netizens) "kick the bums > >>out" who are governing the internet in our name? THis is also the > >>acid test of freedom, because any people that cant' remove the powers > >>that be are NOT free, they're totally subject to the will of "another" > >>-the definition of a political slave. > > > > [JFC Mortin] :-) This is something as I keep refering to as > "e-colonization" under > > the US e-umbrella. Some have engaged in drastic move against their > > perceived roots of colonization, i.e. corruption. I feel that if we > > do not defuse this Spartacus revolt, it may contaminate the entire > > world, without much a result as the true solution is to by-pass > > corruption. The technological tools we now have may help (because > > technical standards work the same for all) because corruption is the > > failure of the law. BTW, this is why making NN a legal issue is dead-end. I add that this does not preclude NN to be legally defined. However, NN is about the way to build, operate and use bits. Bit is the basic element of the universe. Law is its ultimate discovery. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 07:29:36 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:29:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: A few points : 1) a distinction should be made between a) the IGF as the annual "watering hole" where progress is evaluated and orientations are being given, and b) the numerous processes that take place during the year in several spaces (connected or not) on the corresponding issues. One objective of the IGF in my view is to "synchronize" such discussions, ie : to make sure that they take into account the same elements and the same formulation of the issues. The IGF as a whole is not and should not be the place for the negotiations themselves for the reasons Wolfgang mentions. 2) Ideally, the IGF can help (re-)formulate issues in a way that makes them more a common objective, as I believe it is a prerequisite for constructive engagement. Examples include changing "Ending the unilateral control of the critical internet resources by the US government" into "Ensuring the integrity of the root zone file". The former is a contentious subject, the later is a common objective that allows to discuss whether the current modalities are sufficient, acceptable, can be improved, etc.... 3) Thematic networks (instead of dynamic coalitions) could be set up to connect the different structures dealing with a given issue, to coordinate their work intersessionally. The outcome of their work could be "recommendations presented AT the IGF". IGF meetings could even be used by whatever drafting group they establish to finalize wording (as opposed to a general IGF drafting exercise) or to present the current status of work to get feedback. 4) A major issue that Wolfgang is alluding to is formalizing a little better the outcome of the workshops :it could be a few "common formulations" on sensitive topics and "main messages", to reflect the different dimensions of the issue or even divergent opinions. Such workshop reports/inputs should be done on site in order - when possible - to feed into the relevant main sessions. The web site should be improved to facilitate access to these reports (for the moment it is too much focused on the preparatory work rather than being a source of useful resources for participants and non-particiants). 5) An new format (wrap-up, roundtables ?), intermediary between workshops and main sessions, could be introduced in the future to help channel the outcomes of related workshops into the main sessions. It would gather the organizers of the workshops and the moderators of the main sessions to help structure the subsequent discussions in the main sessions. 6) A more structured circulation of information should be put in place as the network of national and regional IGFs develop. In particular, it could produce useful INPUTS into the global IGF from the national and regional ones. Likewise, the IGF could produce elements that national and regional IGFs would use to structure their own discussions. 7) As for Karl's useful suggestion to deal a bit more with substance, reformulation of some of the most sensitive topics (before trying to rush to find "solutions") could be a very beneficial first step and the IGC could positively contribute : - "net neutrality" is a good case in point : there is a high level of confusion on what it entails and different actors keep talking to one another with completely different understandings of the term itself. I have suggested elsewhere (following interesting discussions at the last EuroDIG), to reframe it as "Limitations to Network Management" (other formulations can be envisaged). An important ooutcome of the IGF in vilnius could be the formation of a thematic network gathering the various processes under way in parallel at national or regional levels or within IGOs or specific groupings. - likewise, themes like : "applicable jurisdiction for globally-hosted content", "liability of intermediaries", "procedures for notice and take-down" and "general principles for social media terms of service" could lead to similar thematic network formation and the development of "globally-applicable public policy principles" These elements will form an integral part of the discussions on IGF "improvements" and the IGC has an important role to play in this respect. I hope the suggestions above can help a fruitful debate. Best Bertrand 2010/8/21 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> > Parminder: > > I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global IG > policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise call > themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) and of the IGF > (the latest was a very strong blocking of the proposal that IGF gives out > 'messages' on key issues as the EuroDIG does). > > > Wolfgang: > > It was me who proposed in the first MAG meeting after Athens (February > 2007) to "invented" a new category of "outcome" which has not the political > bagagae of a "recommendation" in the UN context. A"recommendation" is a > negotiated text and you need a "drafting group" wehre all parties are > represented in a balanced way. If you would start within a four day meeting > with "negotiations" you unavoidably destroy any type of discussion. Parties > will start to fight there there "fixed position" is reflected in the final > document and the struggle goes around language which is so general that all > parties feel that they have won. The formula "enhanced cooperation" is a > very god example. With other words: You have an "outcome" but it is > meaningless. > > To avoid this and to move forward to the discussion of substance you have > to avoid such a type of negotiations where "word smithing" is more important > than the issue. I understand that people want to take something home after a > meeting. And they are not satisfied if they have only the Chairman´s summary > and the thousands of pages of the transcripts (which are nevertheless > importanten) Against this background I proposed in the MAG > 1. to produce readable proceedings in form of an "IGF book" what you can > take home (free of charge), distribute to friends and put on your bookshelf > (and read again if needed) and > 2. to introduce as a new (undefined) category the formulaiton of "messages" > as a light weight outcome from a discussion and as a visible "output" from > the meeting. > > My idea with the message was (and is) that each convenor/raporteur of a > plenary or workshop formlates at the end of the session one or two (or three > as a maximm) key conclusions and summarizes this in form of short messages. > This is normally the case in each meeting but so far there is no mechanism > in place to channel this type of conclusions to a audience beyond the peole > sitting in the rom. These conclusions can be controversial messages (one > party said so and another party said so) but it has to be concrete, precise, > cover a key aspect and has to be also short (not longer than three > lines/similar to the length restrictions you know from twitter). But the > most important point is it would a non-negotiated text. No drafting group > needed. If you have 80 workshops and plenaries you will get around 160 > messages from 80 perople which avoids that one party overtake or capture the > formulation of the messages. Certainly this will enhance the responsiblity > of the raporteur (and the procedure to nominate a rapporteur). > > I remember very well the discussion in the MAG in February and May 2007. > The Brazilians wanted to have something like a "Rio de Janeiro IGF > Declaration". Bilcaho, the Brazilian governmental representative, was > excited in the beginning to have "IGF Messages from Rio de Janeiro". But for > a number of reasons, it did not work for Rio (and not for the following > IGFs). > > When we launched EURODIG, it was easier to convince the core team to think > about "messages" as an alternative to "recommendations". And it workd in > Strasbourg in 2008, where "Messages from Strasbourg" where produced "bottom > up" and the core team just made some final polishment but did not change the > substance of the messages which came from the rapporteurs of the various > sessions. The same happend with the "EURODIG Geneva Messages from 2009" and > now with the "2010 EURODIG Madrid Messages". The same thing happend with the > German IGF where we produced a one page "IGF-D Messages from Berlin" out of > four sessions. > > Why I go back to the history? The lesson here is that nothing will happen > when you introduce it for the first time. If something is new, it takes time > that others are convinced. And as Avri has pointed out, it is an > evolutionary process which evolves bottom up. I am convinced that the idea > of "messages" - if they continue to proof to be a useful outcome from > regional and national IGFs - will be also attractive - sooner or later - for > the global IGF. > > Best wishes > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Aug 23 11:21:42 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:51:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Outcome, Messages etc. In-Reply-To: References: <5EBC93D6B8F34B50A7632282C483E4B3@userPC> <4C6B44CD.6050104@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06F99@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4C729206.6000204@itforchange.net> Dear Bertrand As always I read your erudite and intelligent arguments with much interest. It is not that I have no hopes from the IGF. I have hopes, and this is why I continue to closely associate with it. And it is not that the IGF system (pulling in together also the regional/ national IGFs) is not, or will not be, contributing anything. However, what I fear is that it is setting up a new global governance paradigm which at its heart is very *conservative*. It will certainly be able to produce some results like in area of network security that affect all of us, almost equally. It may be able to produce rules that provide the basic structure for society's stability, which is the conservative political agenda. However, I see the same emerging global governance model subverting any or all possibilities of 'progressive change' - towards greater equality and social justice in this world. Denial of any such possibility is written in the DNA of the emergent governance model (unlike the DNA of a democratic model which is, at its root, egalitarianism oriented). What we want is a global governance model which is more social justice oriented. And I do not see the IGF system evolving towards any such possibility, at least at present. ( I will like to hear arguments to the contrary.) Unless, of course, as I have argued earlier, the multi-stakeholder model of IGF is subordinate to, and feeds into, a more clearly (deep) democratic governance model at the global level. Unless I hear a IGF/ multistakeholderism proponent also discuss parallel developments towards global democracy, I remain skeptical of the pitch. Picking up two examples from your text. >Examples include changing "Ending the unilateral control of the critical internet resources by the US government" into >"Ensuring the integrity of the root zone file". The former is a contentious subject, the later is a common objective that >allows to discuss whether the current modalities are sufficient, acceptable, can be improved, etc.... I am unable to agree to this. One can discuss or perhaps even ensure the integrity (whatever it means) of the root without its democratic governance which is the point of the other formulation '"Ending the unilateral control of the critical internet resources by the US government". As one can have economic progress under a despotic rule, but that is *not* ok. In the same way >"net neutrality" is a good case in point : there is a high level of confusion on what it entails and different actors keep >talking to one another with completely different understandings of the term itself. I have suggested elsewhere >(following interesting discussions at the last EuroDIG), to reframe it as "Limitations to Network Management" (other >formulations can be envisaged I will rather frame NN issue as a media rights, and economic, social and cultural rights, issue (in the same way as I cringe from presenting FoE as a trade restriction issue, a la Google and US gov). And I am quite sure, both, that (1) it is quite difficult to make much progress at the IGF, as it is at present, in trying to project NN as a social and economic rights issues, and at the same time, (2) whether NN is posited as a network management issue or a rights issues, things will move in quite different directions. I have used the above examples to illustrate how the needs of global social justice are difficult to be met in a highly *conservative* governance model which seem to be emerging around, and through, the IGF. We thus need to build new, more democratic structures, at the global level, and the the IGF should be an important part of it. Thanks and best regards Parminder On Monday 23 August 2010 04:59 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > A few points : > > 1) a distinction should be made between a) the IGF as the annual > "watering hole" where progress is evaluated and orientations are being > given, and b) the numerous processes that take place during the year > in several spaces (connected or not) on the corresponding issues. One > objective of the IGF in my view is to "synchronize" such discussions, > ie : to make sure that they take into account the same elements and > the same formulation of the issues. The IGF as a whole is not and > should not be the place for the negotiations themselves for the > reasons Wolfgang mentions. > > 2) Ideally, the IGF can help (re-)formulate issues in a way that makes > them more a common objective, as I believe it is a prerequisite for > constructive engagement. Examples include changing "Ending the > unilateral control of the critical internet resources by the US > government" into "Ensuring the integrity of the root zone file". The > former is a contentious subject, the later is a common objective that > allows to discuss whether the current modalities are sufficient, > acceptable, can be improved, etc.... > > 3) Thematic networks (instead of dynamic coalitions) could be set up > to connect the different structures dealing with a given issue, to > coordinate their work intersessionally. The outcome of their work > could be "recommendations presented AT the IGF". IGF meetings could > even be used by whatever drafting group they establish to finalize > wording (as opposed to a general IGF drafting exercise) or to present > the current status of work to get feedback. > > 4) A major issue that Wolfgang is alluding to is formalizing a little > better the outcome of the workshops :it could be a few "common > formulations" on sensitive topics and "main messages", to reflect the > different dimensions of the issue or even divergent opinions. Such > workshop reports/inputs should be done on site in order - when > possible - to feed into the relevant main sessions. The web site > should be improved to facilitate access to these reports (for the > moment it is too much focused on the preparatory work rather than > being a source of useful resources for participants and non-particiants). > > 5) An new format (wrap-up, roundtables ?), intermediary between > workshops and main sessions, could be introduced in the future to help > channel the outcomes of related workshops into the main sessions. It > would gather the organizers of the workshops and the moderators of the > main sessions to help structure the subsequent discussions in the main > sessions. > > 6) A more structured circulation of information should be put in place > as the network of national and regional IGFs develop. In particular, > it could produce useful INPUTS into the global IGF from the national > and regional ones. Likewise, the IGF could produce elements that > national and regional IGFs would use to structure their own discussions. > > 7) As for Karl's useful suggestion to deal a bit more with substance, > reformulation of some of the most sensitive topics (before trying to > rush to find "solutions") could be a very beneficial first step and > the IGC could positively contribute : > > * "net neutrality" is a good case in point : there is a high level > of confusion on what it entails and different actors keep > talking to one another with completely different understandings > of the term itself. I have suggested elsewhere (following > interesting discussions at the last EuroDIG), to reframe it as > "Limitations to Network Management" (other formulations can be > envisaged). An important ooutcome of the IGF in vilnius could be > the formation of a thematic network gathering the various > processes under way in parallel at national or regional levels > or within IGOs or specific groupings. > * likewise, themes like : "applicable jurisdiction for > globally-hosted content", "liability of intermediaries", > "procedures for notice and take-down" and "general principles > for social media terms of service" could lead to similar > thematic network formation and the development of > "globally-applicable public policy principles" > > These elements will form an integral part of the discussions on IGF > "improvements" and the IGC has an important role to play in this respect. > > I hope the suggestions above can help a fruitful debate. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > 2010/8/21 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > > > > Parminder: > > I have seen any effort to improve IGF's meaningful role in global > IG policy making blocked vehemently, mostly by those who otherwise > call themselves adherent supporters of MSism (multistakeholderism) > and of the IGF (the latest was a very strong blocking of the > proposal that IGF gives out 'messages' on key issues as the > EuroDIG does). > > > Wolfgang: > > It was me who proposed in the first MAG meeting after Athens > (February 2007) to "invented" a new category of "outcome" which > has not the political bagagae of a "recommendation" in the UN > context. A"recommendation" is a negotiated text and you need a > "drafting group" wehre all parties are represented in a balanced > way. If you would start within a four day meeting with > "negotiations" you unavoidably destroy any type of discussion. > Parties will start to fight there there "fixed position" is > reflected in the final document and the struggle goes around > language which is so general that all parties feel that they have > won. The formula "enhanced cooperation" is a very god example. > With other words: You have an "outcome" but it is meaningless. > > To avoid this and to move forward to the discussion of substance > you have to avoid such a type of negotiations where "word > smithing" is more important than the issue. I understand that > people want to take something home after a meeting. And they are > not satisfied if they have only the Chairman´s summary and the > thousands of pages of the transcripts (which are nevertheless > importanten) Against this background I proposed in the MAG > 1. to produce readable proceedings in form of an "IGF book" what > you can take home (free of charge), distribute to friends and put > on your bookshelf (and read again if needed) and > 2. to introduce as a new (undefined) category the formulaiton of > "messages" as a light weight outcome from a discussion and as a > visible "output" from the meeting. > > My idea with the message was (and is) that each convenor/raporteur > of a plenary or workshop formlates at the end of the session one > or two (or three as a maximm) key conclusions and summarizes this > in form of short messages. This is normally the case in each > meeting but so far there is no mechanism in place to channel this > type of conclusions to a audience beyond the peole sitting in the > rom. These conclusions can be controversial messages (one party > said so and another party said so) but it has to be concrete, > precise, cover a key aspect and has to be also short (not longer > than three lines/similar to the length restrictions you know from > twitter). But the most important point is it would a > non-negotiated text. No drafting group needed. If you have 80 > workshops and plenaries you will get around 160 messages from 80 > perople which avoids that one party overtake or capture the > formulation of the messages. Certainly this will enhance the > responsiblity of the raporteur (and the procedure to nominate a > rapporteur). > > I remember very well the discussion in the MAG in February and May > 2007. The Brazilians wanted to have something like a "Rio de > Janeiro IGF Declaration". Bilcaho, the Brazilian governmental > representative, was excited in the beginning to have "IGF Messages > from Rio de Janeiro". But for a number of reasons, it did not work > for Rio (and not for the following IGFs). > > When we launched EURODIG, it was easier to convince the core team > to think about "messages" as an alternative to "recommendations". > And it workd in Strasbourg in 2008, where "Messages from > Strasbourg" where produced "bottom up" and the core team just made > some final polishment but did not change the substance of the > messages which came from the rapporteurs of the various sessions. > The same happend with the "EURODIG Geneva Messages from 2009" and > now with the "2010 EURODIG Madrid Messages". The same thing > happend with the German IGF where we produced a one page "IGF-D > Messages from Berlin" out of four sessions. > > Why I go back to the history? The lesson here is that nothing will > happen when you introduce it for the first time. If something is > new, it takes time that others are convinced. And as Avri has > pointed out, it is an evolutionary process which evolves bottom > up. I am convinced that the idea of "messages" - if they continue > to proof to be a useful outcome from regional and national IGFs - > will be also attractive - sooner or later - for the global IGF. > > Best wishes > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From valeriab at apc.org Mon Aug 23 11:52:00 2010 From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:52:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C71C320.8090205@gmail.com> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> <4C71C320.8090205@gmail.com> Message-ID: <13B16A7D-7D31-4CD7-9F54-7441E93E6123@apc.org> Dear Ginger, I accept the nomination. Best, Valeria On 22/08/2010, at 19:38, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Bill, > Wolfgang, and Valeria, could you please confirm your acceptance of > the nominations? > > We now have: > Valeria Betancourt (not confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (not confirmed) > > Best, Ginger > > On 8/22/2010 9:10 AM, William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi Ginger >> >> I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwachter, who I think could hit the right >> political notes re: IGF renewal etc. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill >> >> On Aug 22, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> Thank you for the nominations of: >>> Valeria Betancourt (not confirmed) >>> Fatimata Seye Sylla >>> >>> While these are two excellent candidates, I repeat my call for >>> nominations for IGC Civil Society speakers for the opening and >>> closing main sessions at the IGF Vilnius 2010. >>> >>> We are looking for excellent and representative speakers for CS as >>> a first priority, and aim to help the balance of diversity in all >>> of its facets in the program. I understand that it is taking time >>> to confirm availability, but ask that nominations be submitted as >>> soon as possible, as the IGF Secretariat needs to finalize the >>> program and speakers. >>> >>> If you have any questions, do not hesitate to email me/Jeremy >>> privately. >>> >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> On 8/20/2010 1:28 PM, SAMUELS,Carlton A wrote: >>>> >>>> An excellent prospect! >>>> >>>> Carlton Samuels >>>> >>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2010 10:43 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Tijani BEN JEMAA >>>> Cc: 'Ginger Paque'; 'Fatimata Seye Sylla' >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening >>>> and closing >>>> >>>> I am pasting Fatimata's short Bio here, for those who may not be >>>> able to receive the attachment: >>>> >>>> Fatimata Seye Sylla, Senegal (Africa) >>>> Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab >>>> at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer >>>> Science from IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business >>>> Administration from CESAG, Dakar, the regional management school >>>> for Africa. >>>> >>>> After several years of experience in the field of ICT for >>>> development in Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the >>>> USAID/EDB project, in charge of the integration of ICTs in >>>> teaching/learning practices in Middle Schools for quality >>>> education in Senegal. >>>> >>>> Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in >>>> the fields of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and >>>> democracy and Internet Governance. She is a founder member of >>>> several associations (ISOC Senegal, OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, >>>> REGENTIC, Bokk Jang). She was nominated member of the ICANN At- >>>> Large Advisory Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also >>>> elected President of the African Regional At-Large Organisation >>>> (AFRALO) in 2009. >>>> >>>> Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information >>>> Society (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She >>>> also participated in all the IGF editions at the national, >>>> regional and international levels. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/20/2010 11:03 AM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: >>>> Ginger, >>>> >>>> Now that Fatimata accepted the nomination, I attach her short Bio. >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> Tijani BEN JEMAA >>>> Vice Chairman of CIC >>>> World Federation of Engineering Organizations >>>> Phone : + 216 70 825 231 >>>> Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 >>>> Fax : + 216 70 825 231 >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> De : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>>> Envoyé : vendredi 20 août 2010 14:23 >>>> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fatimata Seye Sylla >>>> Cc : Ginger Paque >>>> Objet : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening >>>> and closing >>>> >>>> Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. >>>> Could you please post a short bio and explain why you would be >>>> good for this speaking slot? You might want to keep Bill Drake's >>>> previous post in mind... (see below) >>>> Best, Ginger >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF >>>> will be renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics >>>> in intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be >>>> desirable for CS interventions in the opening and closing >>>> sessions to be fully sensitive to what's going on and calibrated >>>> accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad idea to adopt a >>>> negative tone and directly take on the actors who are pushing for >>>> a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But the >>>> case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a >>>> positive manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the >>>> arguments for "improvements." Given the stakes at this >>>> particular juncture, we should be somewhat strategic about how we >>>> use these opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the >>>> message. This relates to selecting nominees as well—consider the >>>> panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and discussions (texts >>>> and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these >>>> parameters. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/20/2010 8:45 AM, Fatimata Seye Sylla wrote: >>>> Hello Ginger, >>>> >>>> I accept Tijani's nomination! >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Fatimata >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Ginger Paque >>>> wrote: >>>> Yes, Bazlu, we would like geographic and other balance. Point >>>> noted, and nomination of Adam Peake noted. >>>> >>>> Adam, will you please post one paragraph for those who need a >>>> refresher? >>>> >>>> Will all nominators (Tijani Ben Jemaa, Tracy Hackshaw, McTim, AHM >>>> Bazlur Rahman) please check with their nominees (Mrs Fatimata >>>> Seye Sylla, Ginger/Marilia, Hartmut Glaser, Adam Peake) to make >>>> sure they are willing to speak, expect to be at the meeting, and >>>> post their one-paragraph bios? Additional nominations should do >>>> the same. >>>> >>>> Thanks! Please do not 'reply all' to this email, as I am ccing >>>> those named above. >>>> >>>> Best, Ginger >>>> >>>> On 8/19/2010 7:28 AM, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: >>>> Dear Ginger Paque, >>>> Who will from Asia ? >>>> I would like to propse Mr. Adam Peake from Asia. >>>> With best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> Bazlu >>>> _______________________ >>>> AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR >>>> Chief Executive Officer >>>> Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) >>>> [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and >>>> Social Council] >>>> & >>>> Head, Community Radio Academy >>>> >>>> House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 >>>> Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh >>>> >>>> Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 >>>> Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 >>>> E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: Ginger Paque >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; McTim >>>> Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2010 5:41 PM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening >>>> and closing >>>> >>>> Noted, McTim, thank you! >>>> >>>> Hartmut, would you please post a one-paragraph summary for those >>>> who are not familiar with your work? Thanks! Best, Ginger >>>> >>>> On 8/19/2010 6:11 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> I would like to nominate Hartmut Glaser as speaker as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Fatimata Seye Sylla >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> *********************************************************** >> 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 >> www.linkedin.com/in/williamjdrake >> *********************************************************** >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------- Valeria Betancourt Coordinadora / Coordinator Programa de Políticas de TIC en América Latina / Latin American ICT Policy Programme 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 12:02:19 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:02:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] multistakeholderism In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20100823103833.04fc07c8@jefsey.com> References: <7.0.1.0.2.20100819094516.05231d40@jefsey.com> <32CDB123EAAE4C56985E2B37B27CCCFF@userPC> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821114439.05a62020@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100821172635.05a62688@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100822200004.05371ec0@jefsey.com> <7.0.1.0.2.20100823103833.04fc07c8@jefsey.com> Message-ID: My "acid test for freedom" was developed in the context of elections in the USA and elsewhere, and constitutes a direct application of the universal laws we are basically agreeing on. While you consider your applications of principles (to the net) more concrete and mine more theoretical, the fact is that mine, too, are directly applied to an element of the "real world" where, as you say, lawyers are "engineers." The acid test for freedom is quite workable in the context of elections to make people realize that (1) the ability to "kick the bums out" is necessary but not always sufficient to ensure freedom, but without it we know for sure we're not free, and (2) "transparency" alone, without the ability to kick the bums out, is hardly enough - one must also have the remedies available to DO SOMETHING about the information one receives through the "windshield" of transparency (such as information obtained about vote counts via transparency). Without such immediate remedies, it is like sitting on a railroad track in a stalled car with no "remedies' like a gas pedal, engine and steering wheel. As deficient as transparency (too abstract a term, IMO) is in many contexts, by comparison globally we are much more deficient in the recognition of remedies that can be utilized regarding information obtained through transparency. Having, hopefully, dispensed above with your statements that I'm too much "in the sky" by pointing to a direct application of the acid test with a better fit (in elections) than the acid test would have in your judgment regarding the internet (a good start, but not concrete enough) I"m satisfied that we are on the same level, even if operating in different "worlds" for the most part. Even still, here I am on an internet governance list so I can't be totally in another world - there's at least this overlap! ;) A difference (in experience) that remains between us is my report of relative success in talking to people compared to your more pessimisstic outlook on education. For me, I don't consider what I do to be "educating" in the specific sense of teaching anything truly New. Rather, I am reminding people of what they already know or have already learned, and most importantly emphasizing its importance and bringing it to the forefront of their minds. With all due respect to the skills of internet engineers, it's a considerable advantage to be able to retain more basic non-technical vocabulary as a means of communicating with people - at least to get them to the basic territory with basic compass directions in mind, and then to provide them with more specific info such as that you know much about. Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/23/10, JFC Morfin wrote: > At 00:51 23/08/2010, Paul Lehto wrote: >>Seeing that we agree on the most important point *Your E-colonization >>appears equivalent in essence to my "acid test for freedom". the bulk >>of the rest is mostly to the benefit of additional perspective (ir >>difference therein) or experience, or addition of new angles or >>insights. > > Correct. This is why I believe this can be an area of research. > >>Although you say you derive your fundamental principles from different >>sources (internet binary "code" vs. legal "code") the way I 'hear' >>what you're saying about the universal principles of the internet is >>highly suggestive (to me) that your keen observations about the HUMAN >>intelligence and creativity and behavior on the internet or in >>relation to it is a language you can expertly read into evidence of >>human nature, etc. > > Correct. The difference is that your source leads you to write in > plain legal texts, while mine is to write it in plain standardization > text, i.e. high-level binary code. Since it is about the same matter > and that reticular writting is currently taking the lead on document > writting, I suggest that more transdisciplinarity is advisable. > >> That may not be the most global and precise >>summary of your position, but the point I'm leading to stands >>nevertheless, I think, especially since I've grounded it in my own >>personal feeling! :) And that is that you observe natural justice and >>its corruptions via the most salient aspects of the internet, and I >>observe them through not so much law (although that's included) but >>political theory and philosophy on the nature of Aristotle's "politcal >>animal" as "updated" by the ages. But, if true, then that means that >>we are aiming for the same star as our guide, and even though we >>expect not to reach that guidestar, like a mariner without the stars >>(compass and astrolabe) we would be lost indeed without the star to >>give us direction. > > Except that I am a seaman and I do prefer feeling the hull of my > cybship bold and stable under my shoes :-) > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 12:51:07 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:51:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments) Message-ID: Dear all, Paul and Bill, I have no qualms whatsoever with any of the nominees that have been put foward and will not propose myself for obvious reasons ;-) What I want to address here is I think there is a misunderstanding between Paul and Bill that must be clarified right away. What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy. This *clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, *as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. Could we ask the co-moderators to initiate such a process and maybe designate two or three people (with diverse perspectives) to rapidly prepare a first blurb (with main headings only as a starting point) ? As for Paul's remarks, his Post Scriptum is actually simpler to understand than the analogy with someone's hand in somebody else's pocket (where is the hand here and whose pocket is it ?). In his PS, Paul wrote : "*There is typically always a way to diplomatically say what needs to be said without taking away any points or any force in what one is saying*". Here I vehemently agree (as Milton likes to say) : integrity of speech is in the substance of the message, not the degree of abruptness in the formulation. Since when has thinking strategically, identifying allies and polishing formulations been considered equivalent to caving in and submitting to the powers that be ? The IGC has demonstrated regularly in the past years its capacity to deliver strong messages in a constructive and articulated voice and there is no reason for it to become unable to do so in this instance. By the way, let's be aware that there is not a simple dichotomy here with the good civil society completely in agreement on what is best for global citizens and the bad governments just wanting to kill the IGF. Reality is that there are strong supporters of the IGF among governments (and other actors) and divergent views (and legitimately so) within this very list on precise modalities for "improvement", let alone the fundamental legitimacy of specific forms of multi-stakeholder interaction (see the debate on multistakeholder*ism*). Lines of opposition cross constituencies more often than we seem to think. The diversity of viewpoints has always been a strength of the IGC as in many respects it represents, in a microcosm, the diversity of positions of the IGF participants at large. This is why many of them are actually following this list as silent participants, because it informs their own positions and exposes them to arguments they do not hear in their respective silos. Any consensus that the IGC can shape is therefore likely to be balanced and showing a good way forward (as it did in the past for the very creation of the IGF). Likewise, any clear description of various alternatives and the pros and cons of each (when there is no full agreement on the list) will positively inform the discussion. The IGF is constantly walking a fine line between too much informality and too much formality; between too much involvement of one category of actors and too little; between superficial consensus and destructive oppositions. Maintaining such delicate balances is key to its progress and to its demonstration that it is really useful. Absolute positions in one direction of the other risks moving us all away from the goal. This has nothing to do with being negative or positive as a matter of principle (although I personally always believe there is possibility to formulate in a positive way even strong arguments), but about saying in a constructive manner what we collectively believe is right, in full appreciation of what is at stake. This is basically a matter of exercising full responsibility. I hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > Whenever one does not have a distinct term of office in which one > essentially can't be removed (as with most elected representatives) > these kinds of "be careful" and "be strategic" and "don't be negative" > considerations always arise. > > This is the condition of every single civil society "stakeholder" > granted some sort of voice in a process: They know full well that they > can not say everything, can't very often be negative, and they feel > they must be strategic in what they talk or complain about. It is > thus that advocating for the truth is replaced by responding to the > carrots and sticks of the powers that be, which is my interpretation > of the class of statements this quote from below is in: "it would be > a bad idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors > who are pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based > configuration." > > Isn't it nearly always a bad idea to "directly take on" the powers > that be from a certain self-preservation perspective? > > What if the powers that be are abusive? In that case, they will > really not appreciate a "negative" approach and do need to be > addressed most directly. To use an example by way of analogy using > something everyone can understand: > > If someone puts their hand down somebody elses pocket, invading the > security of their person as well as property, and keeps fishing around > down there, is there any approach to take other than directly taking > them on and firmly requesting or demanding the full removal of their > hand from one's pocket? > > Only a slavish fear of imminent harm would counsel caution or lack of > negativity in directly taking on such a person. Only a fool would > compromise such that the hand only need come half way out of the > pocket. Only the confused in this instance would get hung up on the > demand "get your hand out of my pocket right now" as being "negative." > > I'm not saying now is definitely the time to be direct and negative. > > But, I am saying that the assessment of the necessity of being > "negative" and "direct" has to be independent of the "threat" of IGF > non-renewal and the like, and thus independent of conflicts of > interest. Any who purport to give voice to people or to interests > are misrepresenting either the nature and certainly the extent of > their giving voice when they are being strategic. > > Without this disregard of the personal or organizational costs of > speaking the truth, the decisions about what is said or not said > ultimately lack integrity -- and this is intrinsically justified by a > belief that one is under a degree of duress, such as IGF renewal. > > This fear can be backwards. I was essentially an elected official for > several years, a governor of a bar association. I made a "no holds > barred" speech, calling the situation "catastrophic" and naming names. > The minutes reflect that I made "compelling" arguments on an issue > not really heard before and an effort was set up to draft a permanent > ("stakeholder?") committee to forward a resolution to solve the > problem. That was done, new voices were brought in to (in effect) > study solutions to the problem I emphatically laid out. Today, it's > been addressed. > > I learned from that experience and others that holding back can hurt > somebody pretty badly if they have a good faith audience who might > otherwise respond to a compelling call to justice. > > Approached the other way, whatever substantive points are > "strategically" held back tend to prove that civil society does not > really represent people first and foremost. Rather, it has first and > foremost in its mind its own self-preservation and continuing access > to the apparent halls of power. That's quite human, and it may be > done sometimes for apparently noble motives like "continuing the great > and important work we have." But still a conflict of interest that > undermines civil society's claim to importance. > > Wisdom, in my opinion, comes in seeing that these excuses or > considerations for not speaking truth to power are virtually always > present in some significant degree, and thus there is never a good > time to speak the uncensored truth, if one allows personal or > organizational conflicts of interest to hold sway. The challenge, > instead, is outlined in my P.S. below - to not hold back but to speak > articulately, compellingly and (usually) diplomatically. These are > the only true qualifications, and anyone can meet them at one or many > times of their life, regardless of background or education, but we > must know when to send the sober policy wonks, and the answer to that > question is surely not "always." > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > > P.S. There is typically always a way to diplomatically say what needs > to be said without taking away any points or any force in what one is > saying. I tried to above, as it would have been shorter and less > diplomatic to say: > > "Don't be a sycophant to power, have some integrity and actually try > to give voice to all of the voices you know in the halls of power > where they aren't heard often enough, or ever. "Pulling punches" may > or may not succeed at self-preservation, but it certainly constitutes > a confllct of interest and it certainly destroys the claim that civil > society is up to the task of representing anything other than a > strategic slice of civil society." > > The main text above is closest to my true intent, and it is also more > diplomatic (I trust). > > > On 8/20/10, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Thanks, Fatimata for accepting the nomination, that's great. [...] You > might want to keep Bill Drake's previous post in mind... (see below) > > Best, Ginger> > > > > Just a small suggestion—with whether and in what form the IGF will be > > renewed up in the air and a lot of back channel politics in > > intergovernmental and UN circles taking place, it would be desirable for > CS > > interventions in the opening and closing sessions to be fully sensitive > to > > what's going on and calibrated accordingly. Presumably it would be a bad > > idea to adopt a negative tone and directly take on the actors who are > > pushing for a more intergovernmental and/or NY-based configuration. But > the > > case for retaining the core features we favor could be made in a positive > > manner that nevertheless effectively responds to the arguments for > > "improvements." Given the stakes at this particular juncture, we should > be > > somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even > > coordinate a bit on the message. This relates to selecting nominees as > > well—consider the panels they'll be on, the kinds of people and > discussions > > (texts and subtexts) that will be involved, and optimize to these > > parameters. > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Aug 23 18:15:13 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 06:15:13 +0800 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the > message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into > account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other > fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach; > and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the > speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but > should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself. > This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy. I agree up until now, but... > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, > as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient > opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the > diversity of viewpoints. This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they will not depart too radically from our general views. Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as your post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for her views and also invite others to comment. I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some hours ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at nic.br Mon Aug 23 18:21:28 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:21:28 -0300 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's In-Reply-To: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C72F468.7070201@nic.br> Hi Jeremy, -- /I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some hours ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) / -- Congratulations ... All the best Hartmut =================================== On 23/8/2010 19:15, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > > wrote: > >> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >> message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into >> account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other >> fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach; >> and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the >> speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but >> should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself. >> This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy. > > I agree up until now, but... > >> This *clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, >> *as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >> opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the >> diversity of viewpoints. > > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and > closing civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC > statements and have been left to the reasonable discretion of those > nominated. > > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding > they will not depart too radically from our general views. > > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as > your post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger > for her views and also invite others to comment. > > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some > hours ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 18:31:57 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:31:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's In-Reply-To: <4C72F468.7070201@nic.br> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4C72F468.7070201@nic.br> Message-ID: Jeremy, My sincere wishes that your child grows up with health, vigor and intelligence in a parent/child relationship of love and trust. But hypothetically, especially as children become teenagers and adults, while our love and trust of them remains (or mostly remains!) the child would not be justified in saying he speaks for the parents, or even the parents 'general values', simply by virtue of having been around the house and been party to conversations there over the years, especially on a matter of any importance. The child and parents would have to confer over what was to be said in a specific context with specific consideration of the strategies applicable therein for their to be any agency or representation even to speak to "general values" and most especially to do so in a strategic way that will impact the parents in future situations. My analogy, as I'm sure all sense, is that "trust" and even love has little or nothing to do with the extent of the authority or agency that is created to speak on behalf of another person, persons, or group of people. Community editing of statements and such is one of several possible processes that would create an agency, regardless of whether the scope of the agency is limited (general values), mid-range (general values with strategic positioning), or specific (speaking for a group's position and making or responding to a specific proposal). Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/23/10, Hartmut Richard Glaser wrote: > > Hi Jeremy, > > -- > /I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some > hours ago > and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) / > -- > > Congratulations ... > > All the best > > Hartmut > > =================================== > On 23/8/2010 19:15, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> > wrote: >> >>> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >>> message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into >>> account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other >>> fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach; >>> and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the >>> speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but >>> should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself. >>> This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy. >> >> I agree up until now, but... >> >>> This *clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, >>> *as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >>> opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the >>> diversity of viewpoints. >> >> This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you >> describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and >> closing civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC >> statements and have been left to the reasonable discretion of those >> nominated. >> >> Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding >> they will not depart too radically from our general views. >> >> Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as >> your post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger >> for her views and also invite others to comment. >> >> I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some >> hours ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Aug 23 18:35:03 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:35:03 -0700 (PDT) Subject: congratulations - : [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments) In-Reply-To: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <826578.5537.qm@web55207.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Congratulations Jeremy !! It feels only like yesterday that I was a new mother . Thank you for your dedication to all of us particularly at this joyous time ! I am one of the serious followers of the IGF discussions and am quite interested in Bertrand's comments!! Shaila Rao Mistry Life is too short ....challenge the rules Forgive quickly ... love truly ...and tenderly Laugh constantly.....and never stop dreaming! From: Jeremy Malcolm To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" ; Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: Mon, August 23, 2010 3:15:13 PM Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments) On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy. > I agree up until now, but... This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they will not depart too radically from our general views. Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as your post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for her views and also invite others to comment. I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some hours ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 18:46:52 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:16:52 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <13B16A7D-7D31-4CD7-9F54-7441E93E6123@apc.org> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> <4C71C320.8090205@gmail.com> <13B16A7D-7D31-4CD7-9F54-7441E93E6123@apc.org> Message-ID: <4C72FA5C.6030301@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 18:51:54 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:21:54 -0430 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's In-Reply-To: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C72FB8A.8080606@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 19:17:36 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:17:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments) In-Reply-To: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any. I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. Just my opinion. Mawaki On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is > the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of > democracy. > > I agree up until now, but... > > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as has > successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. > > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they will > not depart too radically from our general views. > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as your > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for her > views and also invite others to comment. > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some hours > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Mon Aug 23 19:49:37 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:49:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's In-Reply-To: <4C72FB8A.8080606@gmail.com> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4C72FB8A.8080606@gmail.com> Message-ID: You said it right, Ginger: "... individuals, members of CS." The term "representation" is often tricky in this kind of context because of a double sense (at least) of the concept. One can represent in some place the body that sends them there - eg, to carry a message or speak on behalf of that body (I guess this would fall in the agency category Paul is referring to). But also another meaning is that the representing individuals represent the body they emanate from *around the table* or *in the arena* they were sent - in this case, they are the CS elements in that setting, without specifically carrying a collective message or mandate, etc. as to what they are there to do. In one case the emphasis in representation is on the source (and a strong link with said source), in the other it is in the composition of the result. Both situations happen, including here. Mawaki On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:51 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Jeremy said: > > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they will > not depart too radically from our general views. > > I agree with Jeremy that this would be a new practice, and would add that I > think it is too late to try to approve this change before the IGF 2010 > meeting. If there is support for this change, IMO it should be taken up > after Vilnius. > > As I understand it, we suggest CS speakers to the IGF Secretariat. The > speakers speak as individuals, members of CS. > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > On 8/23/2010 5:45 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they will > not depart too radically from our general views. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Aug 24 02:57:46 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:57:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments) In-Reply-To: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <7492978A-71B3-4B5E-9965-D016FE4AD429@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy. > > I agree up until now, but... > >> This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. > > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. What I said was "we should be somewhat strategic about how we use these opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message." I didn't mean this to imply group cooperation on writing text; speakers should of course be trusted and free to say what they want. I just meant a bit of coordination might be helpful to them, e.g. the caucus could discuss a little what sort of message people think would be useful, and the speakers could consider taking on board anything they think particularly important or reflective of consensus. The important point is to be cognizant of what's going on with the politics around renewal and use the opportunity to intervene effectively in the debate; to me at least, a general run-down of known CS positions on various IG issues wouldn't be sufficient, it's not 2007 or whatever. It'd be better to give certain governments and especially UN NY reasons to think carefully about the desirability and sustainability of the "improvements" they're considering. Best, 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 24 03:59:49 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:29:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] current politics around the IGF In-Reply-To: <7492978A-71B3-4B5E-9965-D016FE4AD429@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <7492978A-71B3-4B5E-9965-D016FE4AD429@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4C737BF5.2010803@itforchange.net> Hi All I agree a bit of discussion here about the current politics around the IGF, in light of our priorities, would be useful. There are two directions (which could at times look as opposing) in which things are being pulled, or can move. One, retaining the core features of the IGF as we know it. Two, seeking (small to substantive) improvements in the IGF. I do think that the danger of, and problems with, landing up with no improvements in the IGF at all, is as much as that of not retaining the 'currently core features' of the IGF. I myself do not think there is much danger of loosing these 'core features', but since others seems to, it will be good for them to both list these 'core features' and tell us why, and how, there is a danger of losing them. In the same way we can discuss what kind of 'improvements' may be being proposed, and which kinds may be good and which not. Which kind of 'improvements' may result in the IGF losing its core features in a way we dont want it to. >It'd be better to give certain governments and especially UN NY reasons to think carefully about the desirability and >sustainability of the "improvements" they're considering. (Bill) Bill, can you roughly list what you think the proposed "improvements" whose sustainability and desirability needs to be thought carefully about. Parminder On Tuesday 24 August 2010 12:27 PM, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> > wrote: >> >>> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >>> message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into >>> account the issues that are being discussed (and will be in other >>> fora like the UN GA and the CSTD), which means a strategic approach; >>> and b) that if the IGC proposes a name, there is agreement that the >>> speech is not up to the speaker to draft entirely on its own but >>> should reflect the various sensitivities present in the IGC itself. >>> This should be our understanding (and practice) of democracy. >> >> I agree up until now, but... >> >>> This *clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, >>> *as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >>> opportunities for people to input and sufficient respect to the >>> diversity of viewpoints. >> >> This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you >> describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and >> closing civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC >> statements and have been left to the reasonable discretion of those >> nominated. > > What I said was "we should be somewhat strategic about how we use > these opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message." > I didn't mean this to imply group cooperation on writing text; > speakers should of course be trusted and free to say what they want. > I just meant a bit of coordination might be helpful to them, e.g. the > caucus could discuss a little what sort of message people think would > be useful, and the speakers could consider taking on board anything > they think particularly important or reflective of consensus. The > important point is to be cognizant of what's going on with the > politics around renewal and use the opportunity to intervene > effectively in the debate; to me at least, a general run-down of known > CS positions on various IG issues wouldn't be sufficient, it's not > 2007 or whatever. It'd be better to give certain governments and > especially UN NY reasons to think carefully about the desirability and > sustainability of the "improvements" they're considering. > > Best, > > 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 04:24:07 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 10:24:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments) In-Reply-To: References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention of friends here. However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely allowed to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why would it not be possible and useful for the IGF itself ? The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and possible alternative options to nurture the debate. Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we have not conducted so far in a structured manner. In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to reformulate the proposal as follows : 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was maybe a bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them identify the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and the potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to Mawaki's idea of "talking points" As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline and this would be very useful preparatory work for the next milestones during the end of the year. Hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls > for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & > procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in > the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and > frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). > > I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far > accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this > is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to > reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while > emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any. > I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of > talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but > really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. > > Just my opinion. > > Mawaki > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > > wrote: > > > > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message > is > > the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues > > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and > the > > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes > a > > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to > draft > > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present > in > > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of > > democracy. > > > > I agree up until now, but... > > > > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as > has > > successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for > people > > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. > > > > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you > > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing > > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements > and > > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. > > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they > will > > not depart too radically from our general views. > > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as > your > > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for her > > views and also invite others to comment. > > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some > hours > > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Aug 24 04:36:25 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:06:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's In-Reply-To: References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C738489.1050501@itforchange.net> I like this approach. Parminder On Tuesday 24 August 2010 01:54 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, > > I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my > understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention > of friends here. > > However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF > open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely > allowed to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why > would it not be possible and useful for the IGF itself ? > > The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - > legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among > prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and > the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection of > speakers should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus > another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and > possible alternative options to nurture the debate. > > Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and > elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to > have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we > have not conducted so far in a structured manner. > > In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to > reformulate the proposal as follows : > > 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and > Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and > asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not > have a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) > > 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was maybe > a bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them identify > the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and the > potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to > Mawaki's idea of "talking points" > > As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline and > this would be very useful preparatory work for the next milestones > during the end of the year. > > Hope this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango > wrote: > > I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls > for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & > procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in > the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and > frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). > > I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far > accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this > is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to > reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while > emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any. > I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of > talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but > really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. > > Just my opinion. > > Mawaki > > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > > > wrote: > > > > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, > the message is > > the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account > the issues > > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN > GA and the > > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC > proposes a > > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the > speaker to draft > > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities > present in > > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of > > democracy. > > > > I agree up until now, but... > > > > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the > list, as has > > successfully been done in the past, with sufficient > opportunities for people > > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. > > > > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you > > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening > and closing > > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC > statements and > > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. > > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the > understanding they will > > not depart too radically from our general views. > > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it > is, as your > > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger > for her > > views and also invite others to comment. > > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again > some hours > > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Aug 24 06:34:28 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:34:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments) In-Reply-To: References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4A5B6005-9DA4-45FF-85D4-512AD400A911@ciroap.org> On 24/08/2010, at 4:24 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) Hahaha, but that was one good reason to make me co-coordinator; to shut me up. :-) Personally I had rather been looking forward to hearing the perspectives of some of those who had already been nominated. There would have been no reason why we could not have put forward some suggested talking points for them. But let me discuss with Ginger and revert to the list. Thanks to those who have wished well to my new expanded family! We are all fine. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur 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 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 3189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Aug 24 07:11:08 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:11:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's In-Reply-To: <4A5B6005-9DA4-45FF-85D4-512AD400A911@ciroap.org> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4A5B6005-9DA4-45FF-85D4-512AD400A911@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C73A8CC.2090802@cafonso.ca> I find this quite reasonable (at least my reason to vote for Jeremy was *not* to shut him up :)). However, what are the possibilities of us finding new people? All the ones proposed thus far are old-timers in the process (I am not talking about physical age...). There ought to be good new speakers who could represent us quite well. I can immediately think of Marilia Maciel from Brazil, but I am sure people in other countries/regions will have similar suggestions. fraternal regards --c.a. On 08/24/2010 07:34 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 24/08/2010, at 4:24 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > >> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and >> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and >> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not >> have a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) > > Hahaha, but that was one good reason to make me co-coordinator; to shut > me up. :-) > > Personally I had rather been looking forward to hearing the perspectives > of some of those who had already been nominated. There would have been > no reason why we could not have put forward some suggested talking > points for them. But let me discuss with Ginger and revert to the list. > > Thanks to those who have wished well to my new expanded family! We are > all fine. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur 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 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 07:34:53 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 07:34:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's In-Reply-To: <4C738489.1050501@itforchange.net> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4C738489.1050501@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Aye. Aye. (Desk Thump). I support. Tracy On 8/24/10, parminder wrote: > I like this approach. Parminder > > On Tuesday 24 August 2010 01:54 PM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, >> >> I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my >> understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention >> of friends here. >> >> However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF >> open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely >> allowed to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why >> would it not be possible and useful for the IGF itself ? >> >> The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - >> legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among >> prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and >> the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection of >> speakers should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus >> another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and >> possible alternative options to nurture the debate. >> >> Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and >> elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to >> have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we >> have not conducted so far in a structured manner. >> >> In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to >> reformulate the proposal as follows : >> >> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and >> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and >> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not >> have a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) >> >> 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was maybe >> a bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them identify >> the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and the >> potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to >> Mawaki's idea of "talking points" >> >> As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline and >> this would be very useful preparatory work for the next milestones >> during the end of the year. >> >> Hope this helps. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango > > wrote: >> >> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in >> the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and >> frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >> >> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this >> is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to >> reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while >> emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any. >> I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of >> talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but >> really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >> >> Just my opinion. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > > wrote: >> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> > > wrote: >> > >> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, >> the message is >> > the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account >> the issues >> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN >> GA and the >> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC >> proposes a >> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the >> speaker to draft >> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities >> present in >> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >> > democracy. >> > >> > I agree up until now, but... >> > >> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the >> list, as has >> > successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >> opportunities for people >> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >> > >> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you >> > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening >> and closing >> > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC >> statements and >> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the >> understanding they will >> > not depart too radically from our general views. >> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it >> is, as your >> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger >> for her >> > views and also invite others to comment. >> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again >> some hours >> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> 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") > -- Sent from my mobile device ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm Tue Aug 24 13:06:05 2010 From: carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm (SAMUELS,Carlton A) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:06:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] net neutrality In-Reply-To: <4C6FBE1B.8070606@itforchange.net> References: <4C6FBE1B.8070606@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B73876E@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> Dear Parminder: If you recall my perspective, I have been consistent in maintaining that the popular view of 'net neutrality' is a mirage, never existed; preferential customer-driven traffic management and routing decisions are and have always been part of the standard operations of telecommunications carriers, even before the Internet busted out. Somebody has to pay the bills. And in competitive markets, customer preference is often productized to further fuel and drive customer behaviours. In other words, commercial considerations takes pole position when there is money to be made. Unless the Indian regulator - the State - is willing to outlaw such products or use regulation to make them unattractive, then there will be more copycats in the market. Why, maybe you are on the first wave of even more ingenious packaging. The future has come to India. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 6:53 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] net neutrality See here new pay per site plans for Internet mobile in India http://www.tatadocomo.com/pps-tariff-plans.aspx http://www.tata.com/article.aspx?artid=I+qapklYkjQ= Another Indian telecom, Tata DoCoMo has announced a select boutique of email and social networking sites for about a dollar a month. (The public Internet is of course for a much higher price.) It is obvious that net neutrality is already dead on the wireless internet, as we still argue about definitions and technical intricacies. The fact that is simple and clearly understood by anyone is - IGC's website, for instance, is much more expensive to reach and browse than Facebook, Twitter and Gmail put together. That is the problem, i.e. if we are indeed inclined to see any problem there. And if we see here the death of what was the most important promise of the Internet - that of pulling all of us - or at least all of our content - to the same starting point on the Internet. Wonder why we keep insisting the problem is much more complex, or technical etc. I think it is simple and clear as day light. 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 13:55:23 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:55:23 +0500 Subject: [governance] current politics around the IGF In-Reply-To: <4C737BF5.2010803@itforchange.net> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <7492978A-71B3-4B5E-9965-D016FE4AD429@graduateinstitute.ch> <4C737BF5.2010803@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Dear Parminder, I have been reading the earlier posts on NN and Open Internet and then of course the discussions surrounding IGF politics, I wanted to learn from you more critically that do regions across the world really depend on IGF to be improved especially when they may be getting more out of the regional and country IGFs' taking place and by stakeholders on their own. What is the polity of the regional IGFs and their institutionalization? Let's say for example EURODIG which is of course the EU and CoE countries getting together and delivering messages that they can utilize in various means suitable to them and every year this forum is maturing and becoming results oriented, political and suitable to the regions need. One of the results I have noted is that the EU stakeholders come very strong to the IGF with their opinions and messages cultivated and thought out and you see a level of cooperation amongst the various stakeholders of that region. I see the above case where IGF is still missing the point and where certain stakeholders not in the right of messages or an outcome are already falling pray to the EURODIG process. Its like the blind men and a white elephant examples. In terms of IGF and its programming, earlier last year I witnessed on the floor CS stakeholders opposing the idea of IG4D and also on certain areas we had prior agreed to. I see politics within us as well. I have also seen certain CS stakeholders maintaining diplomacy within the organizations they work with not to touch controversy within the IGF but would do so in the IGC. These are various interesting forces at interplay inside and all around us. Would these also matter to the IGF politics debate? I am really looking forward to your comments on this because these points are really shaping up the current polity? On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:59 PM, parminder wrote: > Hi All > > I agree a bit of discussion here about the current politics around the IGF, > in light of our priorities, would be useful. > > There are two directions (which could at times look as opposing) in which > things are being pulled, or can move. > > One, retaining the core features of the IGF as we know it. > > Two, seeking (small to substantive) improvements in the IGF. > > I do think that the danger of, and problems with, landing up with no > improvements in the IGF at all, is as much as that of not retaining the > 'currently core features' of the IGF. > > I myself do not think there is much danger of loosing these 'core features', > but since others seems to, it will be good for them to both list these 'core > features' and tell us why, and how, there is a danger of losing them. > > In the same way we can discuss what kind of 'improvements' may be being > proposed, and which kinds may be good and which not. Which kind of > 'improvements' may result in the IGF losing its core features in a way we > dont want it to. > >>It'd be better to give certain governments and especially UN NY reasons to >> think carefully about the desirability and >sustainability of the >> "improvements" they're considering. (Bill) > > Bill, can you roughly list what you think the proposed "improvements" whose > sustainability and desirability needs to be thought carefully about. > > Parminder > > > > > On Tuesday 24 August 2010 12:27 PM, William Drake wrote: > > Hi > On Aug 24, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle > wrote: > > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is > the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of > democracy. > > I agree up until now, but... > > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as has > successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. > > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. > > What I said was "we should be somewhat strategic about how we use these > opportunities and perhaps even coordinate a bit on the message."  I didn't > mean this to imply group cooperation on writing text; speakers should of > course be trusted and free to say what they want.  I just meant a bit of > coordination might be helpful to them, e.g. the caucus could discuss a > little what sort of message people think would be useful, and the speakers > could consider taking on board anything they think particularly important or > reflective of consensus.  The important point is to be cognizant of what's > going on with the politics around renewal and use the opportunity to > intervene effectively in the debate; to me at least, a general run-down of > known CS positions on various IG issues wouldn't be sufficient, it's not > 2007 or whatever.  It'd be better to give certain governments and especially > UN NY reasons to think carefully about the desirability and sustainability > of the "improvements" they're considering. > Best, > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 14:25:32 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:55:32 -0430 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's In-Reply-To: References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4C740E9C.50503@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Tue Aug 24 15:02:01 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:02:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] Video from IGF-USA / Pew report on end-to-end In-Reply-To: Message-ID: FYI, General reports of the dozen plenary and workshop sessions of IGF-USA 2010 can now be found on the Imagining the Internet site. The coverage includes 55 video clips in addition to the written background. A team of 10 young people, ages 19 to 26, from Elon University prepared this content: http://bit.ly/bACRen In addition, Imagining the Internet and the Pew Internet Project teamed to produce a survey that a number of IGF participants took part in (thank you!) ­ the Future of the Internet IV: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/default.xhtml. It measured current attitudes about the potential future of the Internet in 10 different topic areas. The questions in the survey were written to elicit detailed elaborations, and the qualitative responses ­ what people wrote ­ is the valuable material. One question that mentioned the end-to-end principle was a test of people¹s beliefs regarding the future of core values. A number of the respondents¹ elaborations can be found here: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/2010survey/future_core_v alues.xhtml and here: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/expertsurveys/2010survey/future_core_v alues_anon.xhtml The responses to the core values question shed some light in regard to the varied views that are held and they illustrate the need for enhanced cooperation and capacity building. Pew Internet director Lee Rainie and I are preparing a book version of the full, 10-question report. In an overview of the core values question, we wrote: > The majority of survey respondents said it is their sincere hope that > information will continue to flow relatively ³freely² online, though they > expect there will continue to be a serious struggle over ³control² of the > Internet. In this question about the future of the end-to-end principle of the > Internet and control of information networks, 63% of the experts (and 61% of > the overall survey group) selected to agree that ³in the years between now and > 2020 the Internet will remain² as its founders envisioned. > > However, many who chose this statement, which also posited that ³most > disagreements over the way information flows online will be resolved in favor > of a minimum number of restrictions² also noted that their response was a > ³hope² and not necessarily their true expectation. They were recording a vote > in favor of the core values represented by the end-to-end ideal. > > Among the experts, 29% chose to agree with the statement that ³the Internet > will mostly become a technology where intermediary institutions that control > the architecture and significant amounts of content will be successful in > gaining the right to manage information and the method by which people access > it.² I am cutting and pasting a selection of some quotes used in the book here below. You can find more on the Web at the URLs above, including two extremely long and deep responses from Laura DeNardis and Doc Searls. Nearly 900 people answered the survey, so what follows is just a small sample, organized under common themes. There is too much good history and good experience with the end-to-end Internet to see a major shift away from this principle. Openness has its virtues, and those who resist it will fall behind those who enable it. Users will rise up in protest if there are too many restrictions that get in the way of the information they want and the content they want to create. ³Net users will band together to keep the Net open. They will continue to choose open over closed and gated.² ‹Jerry Berman, founder and chair of the board of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet public policy organization; president of the Internet Education Foundation ³There is too much at stake to allow intermediaries to control the pipe.² ‹Peng Hwa Ang, dean of the School of Communication, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, and active leader in the global Internet governance processes of WSIS and IGF ³The end-end principle will prevail because it allows for widespread participation in hardware, software, and service innovation as well as capital formation. Incumbent network operators in some nations will succeed in asserting increased control over applications, but, in the long run, they will be at a disadvantage. This will vary from nation to nation, and those who view the Internet as basic infrastructure and act to balance public interest and quality of life along with the return on investment of network operators will be at an advantage in the future. This is related to the issue of ownership. The question is not whether we will have ubiquitous high-speed networks in the future, the question is who will own and control them‹private corporations, government, users? (http://cis471.blogspot.com/2009/02/lets-slow-down-on-broadband-stimulus-in. html). Ownership/control will be disbursed among a mix of organizations each at different network levels. The recent Swedish Regulator's report on open networks and services makes this point: http://cis471.blogspot.com/2009/12/swedish-report-calls-for-openness-and.htm l.² ‹Larry Press, professor of computer information systems, California State University Dominguez Hills ³The Internet is not a single-country phenomenon, it is global. The end-to-end principle is not a single-country concept either. Yet much of what passes for regulation in this world is regional in nature, fashioned overtly or covertly by incumbents with monopolist roots and leanings. Organisations are in a better position to arbitrage between regulations than ever before in their history. Some, the more far-sighted ones, will be attracted to environments where access is open and content non-exclusive. As they scale up and extend their reach, countries will be forced to open up access and content just to compete. The end-to-end principle, particularly in the context of Œno discrimination,¹ will win out over time.² ‹JP Rangaswami, chief scientist, British Telecommunications ³There are large numbers of people working to protect the end-to-end principle within the confines of organized structures such as the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and outside of formal venues (alternate roots).² ‹Elaine Pruis, vice president, client services, Minds + Machines, liaison, Council of Country Code Administrators ³It seems to me inevitable that nation-states will attempt to exert more control over the Internet. However, these will be relatively small changes, so that the Internet will remain relatively free.² ‹Hal Varian, chief economist of Google and on the faculty at the University of California-Berkeley ³This will be an ongoing debate, particularly when traditional organizations see the Internet encroaching on their legitimacy and relevance in the Internet Age. These groups will flail around to protect their business models and perceived relevance, but there will be equally powerful capabilities emerging from the Internet community that will break through/counter those new controls/restrictions on the flows of information.² ‹Richard Forno, visiting scientist at Carnegie Mellon University and principal consultant for KRvW Associates; served as the first chief security officer at Network Solutions (the InterNIC) ³The Internet will defy centralized control as a matter of cultural imperative and political necessity.² ‹Jeff Jarvis, author of What would Google Do? and associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York¹s Graduate School of Journalism ³The end-to-end principle is key for the success of the Internet. If this principle would be abandoned, the Internet as we know it would seize to exist, and the usefulness of that network would be less than the network we have today.² ‹Jonne Soininen, head of Internet Affairs and former system engineering manager, Nokia Siemens Networks ³I'm totally in favor of the unrestricted Net. I think a lot of people are. I hope, together, we have the mojo to see that the founders¹ ideals are preserved. I'm an optimistic person and have answered the questions optimistically.² ‹Joshua Freeman, director of interactive services, Columbia University Information Technology ³The history of the Internet is replete with intermediaries who have tried to control user's access to information, but they have all failed, because consumers demanded unfettered access. CompuServe and Prodigy tried to limit access to only Websites that paid them. AOL made it difficult to navigate away from their favored content to the Web. Consumers demanded more, and ISPs were forced to provide easy access to all of the Web. There is no reason to think that consumers won't continue to force providers to give unfettered access to the Internet.² ‹Andrew Crain, vice president and deputy general counsel at Qwest Communications ³That horse done left the barn, and did when packet self-routing protocols were established as the basis of the Internet. No content-based restrictions can overwhelm the ingenuity of people who want to suborne them.² ‹Charlie Martin, correspondent and science and technology editor, Pajamas Media, technical writer, PointSource Communications, correspondent, Edgelings.com ³Although efforts to concentrate and control information are ceaseless, declining costs and proliferating channels seem likely to enable it to flow around intermediaries that try to exploit passage unduly, and will provide channel competition that I optimistically think multinationals and governments will not be able to block. Looking at efforts to control information flow by some governments, I'm convinced that they know there are huge benefits to their publics, and are just trying to slow things down so they can adjust without disruption.² ‹Jonathan Grudin, principal researcher in human-computer interaction and computer-supported cooperative work at Microsoft Research ³There will be fights on these issues, but just as important is how the Internet as is will be connected to the Internet of things, to health services, all sorts of measuring instruments and eventually incorporated in our bodies, (temperature, blood pressure, pacemakers, digitized neurological systems) bringing us further from Œalways on¹ to Œalways in.¹² ‹Niels Ole Finnemann, professor and director of the Center for Internet Research, Aarhus University, Denmark There are too many powerful forces pushing toward more control of the Internet for the end-to-end principle to survive. Governments and businesses have all kinds of reasons to control what happens online. ³The locked-down future is more realistic as things stand now. We've got a very cautious government, an international movement towards greater control, and a pliant public. I wish this wasn't the case.² ‹Susan Crawford, founder of OneWebDay, Internet law professor at the University of Michigan, former special assistant to President Obama for Science, Technology and Innovation Policy ³Given events in China and Iran, I am going to take a rare (for me) pessimistic position. The forces of central control, politically and economically, are moving to recentralize the power they lost when the Internet grew explosively. The Net neutrality debate in the USA seems to temporarily have restrained the cable and telecommunications companies from exerting centralized control over the architecture, but who knows what will happen politically with future administrations? Unless a sufficient number of people resist, I see more and more control and intermediation being forced upon us.² ‹Howard Rheingold, visiting lecturer, Stanford University, lecturer, University of California-Berkeley, author of many books about technology including Tools for Thought and Smart Mobs ³I hope for the egalitarian selection I've made. However, I fear that the greed of the fewer and fewer, more-and-more-powerful conglomerates, cartels, multinationals, and monopolies, will allow them to use their power over government to choke the power of end-users to access and share the powerful benefits of different-time, different-place, Œnear-instantaneous,¹ egalitarian/equalitarian communications.² ‹Jim Warren, founder and chair of the first Computers, Freedom, and Privacy Conference and longtime technology and society activist ³Much as I want the end-to-end principle to remain, I see it dying. Most users today, and most vendors of network services, perceive the Net as a system of applications not as a system that transports packets. The Internet is headed towards being a Œlumpy¹ network more like the several mobile phone networks in the US than the uniform Internet of today. There are a lot of pressures to drive this lumpiness. We've got the desire of vendors to lock in customers, we have national competitions and firewalls, we have resource scarcity (such as IPv4 addresses that are driving the Net to partition via network address translation, NAT, devices), reaction to excessively heavy regulatory systems such as ICANN, etc. (PS: I believe that IPv6 may prove a dud.)² ‹Karl Auerbach, chief technical officer at InterWorking Labs, Inc. ³Whilst the fundamental technical building blocks of the Internet will not be disturbed, regrettably the technologies that now, and in 2020, will be used to control information flows, can be incorporated within the Internet's existing technological architecture. This means that information intermediaries will have the means to capture more control of content distribution than they already exercise now.² ‹Jeremy Malcolm, project coordinator, Consumers International, and co-director of the Internet Governance Caucus ³This question fills me with dread. It's tautology to say Internet and end-to-end. The Internet is a symptom of the desire and intention to move human relationship in the direction of open society. The efforts to control architecture and information flows are symptoms of intentions to keep society closed. And, to the degree that Œthey¹ succeed, there is no Internet. This is a battle we could lose.² ‹Garth Graham, board member of Telecommunities Canada, promoting local community network initiatives ³As the Internet becomes ubiquitous and increasingly important in commerce and politics, it will become increasingly important and profitable to control it. Control will be exerted through control of systems and architectures, networks, points of access, platforms for sharing, and content. ŒDedemocratization¹ processes are currently in the ascendancy in the US and other nations and these political trends are conducive to increased control by governments and corporations over all aspects of the Internet. As in politics, the democratization (and dedemocratization) of the Internet is not linear. But the trend over the next decade will be dedemocratization. We already see this in the attempts by China and Iran to control access and content and in the so-called Homeland Security legislation in the US to monitor Internet activity. *Cf. Charles Tilly, Democracy, (Cambridge University Press, 2007) for a discussion of the non-linear macro-social processes of democratization and dedemocratization.² ‹Benjamin Mordechai Ben-Baruch, senior market intelligence consultant and applied sociologist, consultant for General Motors Smaller networks will be used by human groups that wish to implement different environments for sharing and consuming content. ³A number of companies have built global IP networks that are not the Public Internet, but provide similar capabilities to companies that don't want their traffic to mix with the Internet. These IP networks often offer QOS services, MPLS VPNs, MPLS pseudowire private circuits, VoIP services, telepresence services and so on. Soon they will offer secure cloud computing services as well, competing with Amazon and Google but not on the public Internet. This activity will secure the Internet's end-to-end principle on the Public Internet, because anyone who has a technical or business reason to want something different can get their needs met on the private Internets. This reduces the pressure on the Internet and the end-to-end principle remains secure. In fact, IPv6 means that you will see even more end-to-end capabilities on the Internet of 2020.² ‹Michael Dillon, network consultant at BT and a career professional in IP networking since 1992, member of BT¹s IP Number Policy Advisory Forum ³Although it may well be possible to access anything from anywhere online, in reality the physical requirements such as routers and access points will always mean that locality plays some role in what is and is not possible. We will start to see more regionality of control, and greater development of specific language-based sub-Webs as the predominantly Western-centric Web becomes less important to the Asian and African continents, and they develop their own dominant sites along with their own culturally driven methods of control and administration. However the vast nature of the Web will still ensure that the majority of Web content remains freely available, following the end-to-end principle.² ‹Rich Osborne, Web manager and Web innovation officer, University of Exeter ³End-to-end will continue to be the dominant principle. Any one force that tries to override it will be overcome with alternative networks that will eventually restore the end-to-end order.² ‹R. Ray Wang, partner in The Altimeter Group, blogger on enterprise strategy ³If you move away from the end-to-end principle, you move away from the Internet itself, and back towards an older mass media model. I cannot see such a move proceed without significant protests from Internet users themselves, and without some bright spark finding a way to implement an alternative, end-to-end Internet that piggybacks onto existing infrastructure.² ‹Axel Bruns, associate professor of media and communication, Queensland University of Technology, and general editor of Media and Culture journal The future will produce a hybrid environment with a bit more control exercised in the ³middle² of the Internet for some purposes, but for other purposes it will enable end-to-end practices. Some things will have to be managed, especially if the capacity of the current Internet becomes strained. ³We will have an outcome that is a hybrid of your two options. For many users, the end-to-end principle in its literal form is a pain‹it means they have to install software and manage upgrades on a PC that is complex and insecure. It is much better to take advantage of services that are professionally run. But I think the end-users will be able to maintain the ability to reach the content of their choice and use the applications of their choice. The crucial question is not where a function is located (at the end-point or from a service provider somewhere on the network), but the extent to which the end-user will preserve the right to choose providers that they decide to trust. The real question is about trust, not location.² ‹David D. Clark, senior research scientist, MIT, an Internet pioneer who has been active in building its architecture since 1981, now working on the next-generation Internet ³While I chose the Œend-to-end¹ option, I believe that the reality will be more of a hybrid where both end-to-end and intermediated connectivity will coexist. This will be because the Googles and Microsofts of the world will do their best to shape the channels and will succeed wherever commercial transactions are involved while a whole range of surrounding end-to-end services will exist to support a diffuse social fabric.² ­­Mark Gibbs, contributing editor and columnist for Network World, consultant, author, speaker and business founder ³While obviously these are contentious issues, in some ways this is a false dichotomy. Intermediary institutions may well gain more control. However, there will be minimal restrictions on information availability, because that's what consumers will demand.² ‹Thomas Lenard, president and senior fellow, Technology Policy Institute, author of many books, including Net Neutrality or Net Neutering: Should Broadband Services Be Regulated? ³We go through cycles of expansion and contraction in our freedoms in different environments, or spheres of activity. The new and often unmanageable is tamed and brought under control. Perhaps that is a good thing, as that state helps to stimulate the next new thing. So, if I wasn't clear, the Internet will become far more controlled, managed, segmented than it is today.² ‹Oscar Gandy, author, activist, retired emeritus professor of communication, University of Pennsylvania ³This is a very hard one. It's complex and multidimensional. Big things like Net neutrality as well as smaller things like customized brokerage and management. So it's not a zero-sum game. Both will increase. Fights to maintain Net neutrality will be fierce, but specialized and proprietary systems will also flourish.² ‹Ron Rice, chair of social effects of communication in the Department of Communication and co-director of Center for Film, Television and New Media, University of California-Santa Barbara ³I really want to check and believe the first option, but it seems that the rapid increase in use of the Internet is not being matched with development and expansion of the infrastructure‹e.g. the predictions that studies suggest we may run out of Internet capacity in a few years. So, supply may not keep up with demand and that suggests a bleaker future for an open end-to-end Internet.² ‹Alan Levine, vice president, community and chief technology officer, New Media Consortium ³We'll see something in the middle. Understanding that information is static and that communication is information in action; communication is the key and access is the lock. Banking/financial institutions and merchant organizations will develop authenticating/verifying roles of business that will enhance commerce. Governments will develop roles of engaging in the communities to govern institutions and protect the constituents. Access will be open and unrestricted but transactions will be governed by rules of commerce and community.² ‹Jack Holt, senior strategist for emerging media, Department of Defense, Defense Media Activity, chief of new media operations, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs ³The dynamics of the Web continue to evolve. Today steps have been taken to monetize content, limit views, and control some distribution. Over the past 10 years the practice and arguments over open and closed have continue to revolve every few years. I believe this revolving door will continue to spin without clear holistic resolution for years to come.² ‹Kevin Novak, co-chair of eGov Working Group at the World Wide Web Consortium and vice president of integrated Web strategy at the American Institute of Architects ³Both answers are correct. It will be a long-tail phenomenon, where most people will go to a few sites such as Google and Apple for most of their information and applications. We are already seeing this in today¹s traffic patterns as documented in the recent Arbor study. However, there will remain millions if not billions of sites that will cater to small communities that will be accessible as long as we maintain the end-to-end principle.² ‹Bill St. Arnaud, chief research officer at CANARIE, Inc. and member of the Internet Society board of trustees ³Some countries will continue to succeed in denying their citizens free access but it will be impossible to take democracy away from the world at large.² ‹Adrian Schofield, manager, applied research unit, Johannesburg Centre for Software Engineering, president, Computer Society South Africa ³By 2020, the Internet will still be dominated by the end-to-end principle. But general adherence to the principle doesn¹t mean gatekeeping will disappear. The big development will be much more visibility for the dozen or so Tier 1 network operators, who collectively provide access to every part of the Internet on the basis of their settlement-free peering relationships. Tier 1 network owners like AT&T, Level 3, Sprint, and TeliaSonera operate in secrecy, and their business practices are not governed by either national regulators like the FCC or international bodies like ICANN. It is actually difficult to identify the members of this privileged club, some of whom have been involved in highly disruptive de-peering incidents in recent years. They wield extraordinary market power, since Tier 2 and Tier 3 operators are obliged to procure the bandwidth they need by negotiating for paid transit with the Tier 1 operators‹negotiations that are invariably shrouded in secrecy. This lack of transparency opens the door to anti-competitive actions to raise prices, increase market share, and punish rivals. A further issue from a global perspective is that most of the Tier 1 networks are American-owned, while some of these same carriers, like AT&T, also have a major stake in Tier 3 ISPs and retail mobile services. The ultimate problem is that disruptive actions like de-peering affect not just other top-level networks, but potentially millions of end-users as well. By 2020, look for the debates about openness to shift from network capacity in the last mile to the wider problem of data reachability across the global Internet.² ‹David Ellis, director of communication studies at York University, Toronto, and author of the first Canadian book on the roots of the Internet Corporate bottom lines will shape large parts of the online experience and more pay-to-play business models will affect information flows online. ³'If the entertainment industry gains control of the routers, it will stop being the Internet, so your dystopian scenario could happen, but not as written.² ‹Clay Shirky, technology consultant, adjunct professor, graduate Interactive Telecommunications Program, New York University, author of Here Comes Everybody ³The future is up in the air. There are strong forces pushing us toward the latter [of the two scenarios presented in the survey]. If we want the former, we have the power to make it so if the global netizenry makes its power felt. So far it has not.² ‹Rebecca MacKinnon, co-founder, Global Voices, visiting fellow, Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University ³I hope for the former but fear for the latter. This is the biggest challenge ahead of us and could go either way.² ‹Glenn Edens, technology strategy consultant, formerly senior vice president and director of Sun Microsystems Laboratories, chief scientist at HP, president AT&T Strategic Ventures ³The end-to-end principle of Internet architecture ended the day Google was incorporated. That company's interest in obtaining the world's information has made it the most dominant information intermediary of any corporation in history.² ‹Marc Rotenberg, executive director, Electronic Privacy Information Center, adjunct professor of law, Georgetown University ³Intermediary institutions have the power and incentives to manage access, and there are no effective barriers to them wielding that power to an increasing degree.² ­­Larry Masinter, principal scientist at Adobe Systems, TAG member at the World Wide Web Consortium, formerly Internet architecture director at AT&T ³I have checked what I desired but I do fear the other alternative will occur, and the greatest driving factor is what has happened to mobile phones. The pricing of text, which in theory is a lot easier to handle than audio, is not a major cost factor and there is no rationale that really justifies the current price structure and cost to the consumer. Mobile communications for the phone should only be charged according to the actual cost of the resources it consumes. The companies are desperately trying to gain control of the content for phones and cable and getting away with it because the possible regulators do not understand the future in this area.² ‹Murray Turoff, professor of computer and information sciences, New Jersey Institute of Technology and co-author of The Network Nation ³A larger portion of the Web will become fee-based by 2020 and the information will be managed. Even Web start-ups will be looking for viable business models, the monetary issues of Facebook and Twitter will not be repeated.² ­­Brad Adgate, senior vice president and research director at Horizon Media ³The end-to-end concept is there to stay, but in a trusted way. Not because (new and old) intermediaries will become barriers to or controllers of the information flow, no; I think the information bits and pieces themselves will be trusted. The trust will be embedded into every bit of information, especially into documents of value (financial, juridical, emotional), and that will control the flow. I call this transparent money: money (or any other document of value, like shares or notary seals) that knows its owner, knows to whom it may be sold or not, and for how long.² ‹Marcel Bullinga, futurist and founder of Futurecheck, writing the book Welcome to the Future Cloud ³Control will likely be re-asserted over various forms of popular media distribution. The controlling companies will exercise it through regulatory means, threat of sanctions, and through finding business models that work better for the consumer. They will continue to take a hit on margins until they strike a balance with what consumers will find it acceptable to pay.² ‹Sam Punnett, president, FAD Research Inc., analyst, Bell Broadcast and New Media Fund ³We are already seeing a significant degree of control in large Web 2.0 and cloud computing applications. Much of the control lies below the surface, buried in ŒPrivacy Policies¹ and ŒTerms of Use,¹ but is real nonetheless. As these technologies attain Œtoo big to fail¹ status this control will not be given up.² ‹Jim Witte, director and professor, Center for Social Science Research, George Mason University ³Only now are the issues of content management and rights becoming widespread and prominent. (In the UK we currently read that all broadband users will have to share the costs of disconnecting persistent infringers of IP from the Internet). The first statement rightly identifies a major issue, but assumes that intermediaries will yield in the face of users and that minimal controls will be imposed. My view is that rights owners are well organised and have the sympathy of governments. (This view is reinforced by events such as the French government's recent decision that Google Books contravenes French copyright law, and that French law overrides foreign law on the Internet in respect of services available in France). The answer probably lies between the two: the Internet will ideally by based on the end-to-end principle, but there will be a growing realisation‹based in a combination of education and legislation‹that there are rights in information that necessarily place some restrictions on its use and re-use. The eventual balance will be dictated by a combination of circumstances, and possibly by alliances of odd bedfellows such as interventionist governments and the music industries.² ‹Peter Griffiths, independent information specialist and former head of information at the Home Office within the Office of the Chief Information Officer, United Kingdom ³There will continue to be centralizing of the content and the resources. It is the way of business to grow and capture your competition. This the area where I have the greatest concern, in that it will become too centralized. Go into many small towns today and you will see a Walmart and many empty locally owned shops, while not inherently bad for the small town, it is a sign of the centralization and more power in the marketplace. In some ways the Internet will continue to grow and be able to accommodate both the large and the small players, if a few specific areas are guaranteed open access. But there is a point at which the audience will stop growing and the centralization will take root. We are just at the cusp another growth spurt, so that will take longer than 10 years.² ‹Michael Nelson, visiting professor of Internet studies at Georgetown University, formerly a director of technology policy with IBM Corporation and the Federal Communications Commission ³In capitalist societies, surplus value is generated by the insertion of the capitalist between the producer and consumer. It is therefore difficult to believe that an institution as fundamental as the Internet could escape the logic of the capitalist system and somehow remain a purely collaborative end-to-end system. Various institutions will seek to control the Web for their own profitability and will identify various social problems with uncontrolled content as a justification for increased control and regulation. Consumers will not resist because corporate supplied content will be of sufficient quality and quantity to satisfy demand.² ‹Robert Runte, associate professor at the University of Lethbridge ³It may be a matter of commercial interest as much as anything, the pressures to monetize content. Look at Rupert Murdoch's recent attempts to make the content he controls visible only through a specified search engine. The pressures will be there.² ‹Pam Heath, principal with Jensen Heath (communications consulting firm), trustee for HistoryLink.org, the first online history encyclopedia created for the Internet ³A number of very large companies have strategies under way to interpose themselves as the intermediary that can direct (and be paid for directing) traffic to sites and content they choose.² ‹Heywood Sloane, managing director, Bank Insurance & Securities Association Diversified Services Group, US Users¹ desire for convenience and their adoption of easy-to-use Internet appliances like the Kindle and iPad, proprietary applications from businesses like Apple¹s iTunes store, and specialized content providers¹ attractively pre-packaged Web tiers will drive less ³open² activity. ³This is not the happy prediction, and I really hope I'm wrong, but there has been so much hype and media and outright pushing of things like (proprietary) eBook readers and (proprietary) iPhone applications, and the like, that people may come to accept that it is normal for vendors to dictate what applications are allowed to run on your machine and what content you are allowed to produce or consume. The future of the Internet, as some pundits have commented, is very much in jeopardy from these closed and proprietary networks, especially those offered by the telecommunications companies. This prediction runs directly counter to some of my other predictions (nobody said consistency was required). And I really, really hope it's wrong, and that alternative networks (powerline networks? mesh personal networks? P2P wireless?) offer viable alternatives to closed proprietary networks.² ‹Stephen Downes, senior research officer, National Research Council of Canada, and specialist in online learning, new media, pedagogy and philosophy ³What will change is that people will want to access customized solutions, use special-purpose devices like the Kindle, and will have a need for better connections for various things like telemedicine. All of this will not be in sync with the end-to-end principle but it will use the Internet architecture and provide value.² ­­Link Hoewing, assistant vice president for Internet and technology issues, Verizon ³The notion of an ŒInternet Service Provider¹ will still exist by 2020, but the main distinction will be the service packaging of base and premium services, both core and related. Perhaps a more descriptive term might be ŒCommunications Service Provider¹ (CSP). For example, your CSP could provide you with broadband access, and in addition offer VOIP services. In addition, the CSP could offer IPTV or so-called Œover-the-top¹ services such as Video-On-Demand, for additional fees, on certain devices. Another service the CSP could offer might be mobile broadband. In the process of delivering these various communication services, the CSP must invest huge amounts of capital in telecommunication infrastructure before any revenue can be realized. These CSPs then act in their own corporate interests in order to maximize the profitability of the services offered. These CSPs effectively become gatekeepers for the Œlast mile¹ of Internet connectivity needed to deliver consumer services. This means that pricing and service offerings, availability, etc., are all under the control of the CSP. A recent example is Comcast purchasing NBC Universal. Now it would be at least theoretically possible for NBC content to receive special treatment on Comcast networks.² ‹William Luciw, managing director at Viewpoint West Partners and director at Sezmi Inc., formerly a director of products and stand­up philosopher at several other Silicon Valley companies ³There will be great pressure by intermediaries to control the architecture, and many Œparts¹ of the Internet might actually end up with these kinds of restrictions (such as how people might use the Internet on future iPhones or Kindles or Xboxes), but I feel the Internet itself will remain, largely, end-to-end, thanks to the advocacy of geeks and lawmakers alike.² ‹Michael Zimmer, assistant professor of media, culture and communication, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee -- Janna Quitney Anderson Director of Imagining the Internet www.imaginingtheinternet.org Senior Fellow, Pew Internet & American Life Project Associate Professor School of Communications Elon University andersj at elon.edu (336) 278-5733 (o) -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From chad at apc.org Tue Aug 24 15:23:51 2010 From: chad at apc.org (Chad Lubelsky) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:23:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C72FA5C.6030301@gmail.com> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> <4C71C320.8090205@gmail.com> <13B16A7D-7D31-4CD7-9F54-7441E93E6123@apc.org> <4C72FA5C.6030301@gmail.com> Message-ID: <90D5F0CC-9A40-4DB9-8AA0-8490FADD78A8@apc.org> Hi everyone, APC would like to nominate the following individuals. Cheers, Chad -- Europe: Karen Banks Karen is the manager of APC's strategic technologies and network development programme. She is a Director of GreenNet, a small non- profit ISP in London, and founding member of the Association for Progressive Communications. In 1993, she formed (along with other women colleagues from the APC) the APC Women's Networking Support Programme. In 1995, APC WNSP led an all women team of 40 to the UN Fourth World Conference on Women, where they provided email and web access to over 10,000 delegates. With other women's rights groups, the APC WNSP also successfully lobbied for the inclusion of 'Media and Communications' as a new chapter in the Beijing Platform for Action – the first global intergovernmental policy reference the importance of women's rights to access new technologies. Karen coordinated the APC WNSP from 1996 to 2004. Since 2004, Karen has managed various national, regional and global ICT policy advocacy and capacity building projects and processes for APC. This included coordination of APC's participation in the WSIS (World Summit in the Information Society), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and OECD meetings. She is currently a trustee of Privacy International (an international privacy rights and civil liberties watchdog based in the UK), was a member of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and was awarded the Anita Borg Social Impact Award with the APCWNSP in 2004. Africa: Fatimata Seye Sylla Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer Science from IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business Administration from CESAG, Dakar, the regional management school for Africa. After several years of experience in the field of ICT for development in Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the USAID/EDB project, in charge of the integration of ICTs in teaching/learning practices in Middle Schools for quality education in Senegal. Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in the fields of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and democracy and Internet Governance. She is a founder member of several associations (ISOC Senegal, OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, REGENTIC, Bokk Jang). She was nominated member of the ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also elected President of the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) in 2009. Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She also participated in all the IGF editions at the national, regional and international levels. Ben Akoh Ben Akoh works as a Project Manager with IISD’s Global Connectivity program. His duties include research, policy analysis, recommendations and capacity building on the development and deployment of Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs) and the Internet pertaining to their role in supporting sustainable development nationally and internationally. His recent positions have included Program Manager, ICT/Media, Open Society Initiative for West Africa (Soros Foundation) in Dakar, Senegal. Asia: Parminder Jeet Singh Parminder Jeet Singh is the Executive Director of IT for Change – a Bangalore based NGO (www.ITforChange.net), which works on information society issues from the stand point of equity and social justice. IT for Change is involved in research, advocacy and field projects, and works from global to national to local levels. Parminder Jeet Singh has worked for close to a decade with the government of India. This has helped him develop a good understand of Indian governance and political systems. He also designed and led some important e-governance projects during this stint. He was invited to INSEAD business school in France to work on a research project looking at the promise of the Internet for community driven governance reform. He co-authored a book 'Government at Net: New Governance Opportunities for India' (Sage Publications 2002) . He later worked in a consultancy capacity with NGOs on ICT for development and e-governance before becoming associated with IT for Change in 2003. At IT for Change, he leads its field activity done through the Centre for Community Informatics and Development. He is also the coordinator of the research and advocacy project 'Information Society for the South'. He has authored numerous papers on ICTs for development, e-governance and the political economy of information society. Parminder has been the Coordinator of Civil Society Internet Governance Forum. At present is a Special Advisor to the Chair of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet Governance Forum, and a member of the Strategy Council of the Global Alliance on ICTs and Development. He is also in advisory groups of a couple of global civil society initiatives in the area of information society. LAC: Katitza Rodríguez Peruvian based in San Francisco, Katitza is the Electronic Frontier Foundation's International Rights Director. In this capacity she concentrates on comparative policy and legal analysis of international privacy issues, with special emphasis on law enforcement, government surveillance, and cross border data flows. Her work in EFF's International Program also focuses on cybersecurity at the intersection of privacy, freedom of expression, and copyright enforcement. Before joining EFF, Katitza was Director of the international privacy program at the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C., where amongst other things, she served as the Research Director of The Privacy and Human Rights Report, an international survey of privacy law and developments in 78 countries, and she served as the civil society liaison while at EPIC from 2009 to March 2010. Valeria Betancourt Activist in the field of ICTs for development and social justice. Her work with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) has focused on ICT policies and internet rights in the context of development countries in Latin America. She has concentrated in facilitating engagement of civil society organizations in ICT policy processes. Her efforts are centered around regionalizing the IGF process by promoting a regional platform for policy dialogue among different stakeholders. Currently, Valeria is a member of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group and has a seat as civil society observer in the eLAC coordination board. Valeria has a background in Sociology and Political Science and holds a Masters Degree in Cultural Studies and Communication. On 23-Aug-10, at 6:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > As of now, I have the following list in order of nomination--please > correct if there are any errors, and start thinking about narrowing > the list to 4 suggestions that we will send to the Secretariat. I > apologize for the previous error in omitting Fouad, who was our > first nomination. > > If there are any other nominations, please do post as soon as > possible. Thanks! > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (not yet confirmed) > > Best, Ginger > > ---- Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator Association for Progressive Communications Montreal, Canada chad at apc.org - +1 514 603 3382 --- APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 17:07:56 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:07:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's comments) In-Reply-To: <4C740E9C.50503@gmail.com> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4C740E9C.50503@gmail.com> Message-ID: I am completely fine with the rationale as explained by Bertrand, and with Bill's concerns which were quite clear from the beginning.. It seems to me it's up to this group to decide what we want to make with this opportunity, as long as we don't go off track of the general context and purpose. By that I mean it would also be ok (imho) if the group decides to take this opportunity, based on the fact that this is a critical juncture, to make a position statement -- as opposed to having individuals presenting their take on the group's perspectives and sense of the way forward, etc. We don't have to make position statement ONLY when the IGF formally calls for a position statement, again as long as we're not off track with the broader agenda. Otherwise, we may just keep it to the individual speakers and share with them here the main points of strategic import we think should not be missed at this particular occasion. Either way, by the coordinators or other designated persons who do not meet a fierce and articulated opposition from any Caucus member, is fine by me. Mawaki p.s. Jeremy, the 3rd time is the good one... No, not for that :-) I'm talking about me having clicked on 'send' too quickly the first two times before adding my warm congratulations for what you and your family have gotten through over the last 9 months or so, and for the result. Very best wishes. On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:25 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and important > discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we should consider > this carefully. > > The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely > opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with a > critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help the IGC > mature into a more significant voice for CS. > > However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, we must > also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not (imho) any longer > be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so the presentations must > necessarily be very carefully prepared. > > May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as suggestions > on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in favor? > > Thanks to everyone, > Best, Ginger > > On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, > > I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my understanding of > past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention of friends here. > > However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF open > consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely allowed to > iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why would it not be > possible and useful for the IGF itself ? > > The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - > legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among prominent > members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and the road forward. > Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection of speakers should not > become an implicit vote for one vision versus another but an opportunity to > identify elements of consensus and possible alternative options to nurture > the debate. > > Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and elements of > opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to have an in-depth > discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we have not conducted so far > in a structured manner. > > In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to > reformulate the proposal as follows : > > 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and > Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and > asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have a > reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) > > 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was maybe a bit > too much,  a preparation on the list could help them identify the main > strategic issues, some consensus formulations and the potential points of > divergence (aka "options"). This is close to Mawaki's idea of "talking > points" > > As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline and this > would be very useful preparatory work for the next milestones during the end > of the year. > > Hope this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in >> the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and >> frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >> >> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this >> is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to >> reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while >> emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any. >> I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of >> talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but >> really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >> >> Just my opinion. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> > wrote: >> > >> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >> > message is >> > the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues >> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and >> > the >> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes >> > a >> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to >> > draft >> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present >> > in >> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >> > democracy. >> > >> > I agree up until now, but... >> > >> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as >> > has >> > successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for >> > people >> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >> > >> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you >> > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and >> > closing >> > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements >> > and >> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they >> > will >> > not depart too radically from our general views. >> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as >> > your >> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for her >> > views and also invite others to comment. >> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some >> > hours >> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign > and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Aug 24 16:29:09 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:59:09 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <90D5F0CC-9A40-4DB9-8AA0-8490FADD78A8@apc.org> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> <4C71C320.8090205@gmail.com> <13B16A7D-7D31-4CD7-9F54-7441E93E6123@apc.org> <4C72FA5C.6030301@gmail.com> <90D5F0CC-9A40-4DB9-8AA0-8490FADD78A8@apc.org> Message-ID: <4C742B95.3040802@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Aug 25 00:12:18 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 21:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's In-Reply-To: <4C740E9C.50503@gmail.com> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4C740E9C.50503@gmail.com> Message-ID: <166832.36281.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Ginger, When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that made an impact, I usually just remember the substance.  And on some I remember the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were speaking from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could not say in what capacity.  I remember "I have a dream" but I do not even know in what capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made some I loved but as a student and I know this includes the great Ghandijji also but before Independence, so in what role I do not know. Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite.  Whether the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and not the messenger.  Let us hear what our best contributors have to say, let them strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further dialogue and deeper thought.  Only the power of their words - or the absence of, will determine if they speak for the greater community. As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators will ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence.  I participated in the vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them with an empowerment to do their best and they have honored that trust. Eric   ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango ; Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and important discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we should consider this carefully. The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with a critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help the IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS. However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, we must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not (imho) any longer be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so the presentations must necessarily be very carefully prepared. May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in favor? Thanks to everyone, Best, Ginger On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, > >I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my understanding of past >practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention of friends here. > >However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF open >consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely allowed to iron >out potential differences and find consensus. Why would it not be possible and >useful for the IGF itself ? > >The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - legitimate >and understandable - differences of approach among prominent members of the list >regarding the IGF exercise itself and the road forward. Hence, at this strategic >juncture, the selection of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one >vision versus another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and >possible alternative options to nurture the debate. > > >Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and elements of >opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to have an in-depth >discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we have not conducted so far in a >structured manner. > > >In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to reformulate >the proposal as follows : > >1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and Jeremy) >as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and asia-pacific), >gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have a reputation of being >particularly tender with the IGF :-) > >2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was maybe a bit too >much,  a preparation on the list could help them identify the main strategic >issues, some consensus formulations and the potential points of divergence (aka >"options"). This is close to Mawaki's idea of "talking points" > >As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline and this would >be very useful preparatory work for the next milestones during the end of the >year. > >Hope this helps. > >Best > >Bertrand > > > > >On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >>for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >>procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in >>the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and >>frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >> >>I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >>accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this >>is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to >>reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while >>emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any. >>I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of >>talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but >>really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >> >>Just my opinion. >> >>Mawaki >> >> >>On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >>> wrote: >>> >>> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the message is >>> the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues >>> that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and the >>> CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes a >>> name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to draft >>> entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present in >>> the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >>> democracy. >>> >>> I agree up until now, but... >>> >>> This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as has >>> successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for people >>> to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >>> >>> This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you >>> describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and closing >>> civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements and >>> have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >>> Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they will >>> not depart too radically from our general views. >>> Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as your >>> post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for her >>> views and also invite others to comment. >>> I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some hours >>> ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >-- >____________________ >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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From me at benakoh.com Wed Aug 25 06:44:24 2010 From: me at benakoh.com (Ben Akoh) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 05:44:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <90D5F0CC-9A40-4DB9-8AA0-8490FADD78A8@apc.org> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> <4C71C320.8090205@gmail.com> <13B16A7D-7D31-4CD7-9F54-7441E93E6123@apc.org> <4C72FA5C.6030301@gmail.com> <90D5F0CC-9A40-4DB9-8AA0-8490FADD78A8@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi All, I'd like to confirm acceptance. Best, Ben On Tue, August 24, 2010 2:23 pm, Chad Lubelsky wrote: > Hi everyone, > > APC would like to nominate the following individuals. > > Cheers, > > Chad > > -- > > Europe: > Karen Banks > Karen is the manager of APC's strategic technologies and network > development programme. She is a Director of GreenNet, a small non- > profit ISP in London, and founding member of the Association for > Progressive Communications. In 1993, she formed (along with other > women colleagues from the APC) the APC Women's Networking Support > Programme. In 1995, APC WNSP led an all women team of 40 to the UN > Fourth World Conference on Women, where they provided email and web > access to over 10,000 delegates. With other women's rights groups, > the APC WNSP also successfully lobbied for the inclusion of 'Media > and Communications' as a new chapter in the Beijing Platform for > Action – the first global intergovernmental policy reference the > importance of women's rights to access new technologies. Karen > coordinated the APC WNSP from 1996 to 2004. Since 2004, Karen has > managed various national, regional and global ICT policy advocacy and > capacity building projects and processes for APC. This included > coordination of APC's participation in the WSIS (World Summit in the > Information Society), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and OECD > meetings. She is currently a trustee of Privacy International (an > international privacy rights and civil liberties watchdog based in the > UK), was a member of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance > (WGIG) and was awarded the Anita Borg Social Impact Award with the > APCWNSP in 2004. > Africa: > Fatimata Seye Sylla > Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab at > Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer Science > from IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business Administration > from CESAG, Dakar, the regional management school for Africa. > After several years of experience in the field of ICT for development > in Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the USAID/EDB > project, in charge of the integration of ICTs in teaching/learning > practices in Middle Schools for quality education in Senegal. > Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in the > fields of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and democracy > and Internet Governance. She is a founder member of several > associations (ISOC Senegal, OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, REGENTIC, Bokk > Jang). She was nominated member of the ICANN At-Large Advisory > Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also elected President of > the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) in 2009. > Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information > Society (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She also > participated in all the IGF editions at the national, regional and > international levels. > Ben Akoh > Ben Akoh works as a Project Manager with IISD’s Global Connectivity > program. His duties include research, policy analysis, recommendations > and capacity building on the development and deployment of Information > and Communications Technologies (ICTs) and the Internet pertaining to > their role in supporting sustainable development nationally and > internationally. His recent positions have included Program Manager, > ICT/Media, Open Society Initiative for West Africa (Soros Foundation) > in Dakar, Senegal. > Asia: > Parminder Jeet Singh > Parminder Jeet Singh is the Executive Director of IT for Change – a > Bangalore based NGO (www.ITforChange.net), which works on information > society issues from the stand point of equity and social justice. IT > for Change is involved in research, advocacy and field projects, and > works from global to national to local levels. > Parminder Jeet Singh has worked for close to a decade with the > government of India. This has helped him develop a good understand of > Indian governance and political systems. He also designed and led some > important e-governance projects during this stint. He was invited to > INSEAD business school in France to work on a research project looking > at the promise of the Internet for community driven governance reform. > He co-authored a book 'Government at Net: New Governance Opportunities > for India' (Sage Publications 2002) . > He later worked in a consultancy capacity with NGOs on ICT for > development and e-governance before becoming associated with IT for > Change in 2003. At IT for Change, he leads its field activity done > through the Centre for Community Informatics and Development. He is > also the coordinator of the research and advocacy project 'Information > Society for the South'. He has authored numerous papers on ICTs for > development, e-governance and the political economy of information > society. > Parminder has been the Coordinator of Civil Society Internet > Governance Forum. At present is a Special Advisor to the Chair of the > Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group of the Internet Governance Forum, and > a member of the Strategy Council of the Global Alliance on ICTs and > Development. He is also in advisory groups of a couple of global civil > society initiatives in the area of information society. > LAC: > Katitza Rodríguez > Peruvian based in San Francisco, Katitza is the Electronic Frontier > Foundation's International Rights Director. In this capacity she > concentrates on comparative policy and legal analysis of international > privacy issues, with special emphasis on law enforcement, government > surveillance, and cross border data flows. Her work in EFF's > International Program also focuses on cybersecurity at the > intersection of privacy, freedom of expression, and copyright > enforcement. Before joining EFF, Katitza was Director of the > international privacy program at the Electronic Privacy Information > Center in Washington D.C., where amongst other things, she served as > the Research Director of The Privacy and Human Rights Report, an > international survey of privacy law and developments in 78 countries, > and she served as the civil society liaison while at EPIC from 2009 to > March 2010. > Valeria Betancourt > Activist in the field of ICTs for development and social justice. Her > work with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) has > focused on ICT policies and internet rights in the context of > development countries in Latin America. She has concentrated in > facilitating engagement of civil society organizations in ICT policy > processes. Her efforts are centered around regionalizing the IGF > process by promoting a regional platform for policy dialogue among > different stakeholders. Currently, Valeria is a member of the IGF > Multistakeholder Advisory Group and has a seat as civil society > observer in the eLAC coordination board. Valeria has a background in > Sociology and Political Science and holds a Masters Degree in Cultural > Studies and Communication. > > > > On 23-Aug-10, at 6:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> As of now, I have the following list in order of nomination--please >> correct if there are any errors, and start thinking about narrowing >> the list to 4 suggestions that we will send to the Secretariat. I >> apologize for the previous error in omitting Fouad, who was our >> first nomination. >> >> If there are any other nominations, please do post as soon as >> possible. Thanks! >> >> Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) >> Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) >> Parminder (not yet confirmed) >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> > > ---- > > Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator > Association for Progressive Communications > Montreal, Canada > chad at apc.org - +1 514 603 3382 > > --- > > APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org > Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! > ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! > Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > > > > > -- Ben Akoh e: me at benakoh.com skype: benakoh blog: http://benakoh.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 07:54:27 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:54:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C742B95.3040802@gmail.com> References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> <4C6D1852.6030302@gmail.com> <8A7CAA35BAAC4DD7ACB71C3A178E37EC@ceo> <4C6D2902.7030505@gmail.com> <4C6E81C5.3080601@paque.net> <4C6EA270.9060703@paque.net> <39D05A5FD7C1334DA749CCFCE8538F87136B6A9B4C@xchg1.uwimona.edu.jm> <4C7101D8.8080201@gmail.com> <4C71C320.8090205@gmail.com> <13B16A7D-7D31-4CD7-9F54-7441E93E6123@apc.org> <4C72FA5C.6030301@gmail.com> <90D5F0CC-9A40-4DB9-8AA0-8490FADD78A8@apc.org> <4C742B95.3040802@gmail.com> Message-ID: for those who have confirmed and pending confirmation of other proposed, I give my consent to this list. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN 2010/8/24 Ginger Paque > IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I ask > than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If your > nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like it to be > included, please let me know by private email during those same 24 hours. > Thanks! Best, ginger > > Current list of nominees. > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) > Karen Banks (unconfirmed) > Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) > > > > > On 8/24/2010 2:53 PM, Chad Lubelsky wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > APC would like to nominate the following individuals. > > Cheers, > > Chad > > -- > > Europe: > > *Karen Banks* > > Karen is the manager of APC's strategic technologies and network > development programme. She is a Director of GreenNet, a small non-profit ISP > in London, and founding member of the Association for Progressive > Communications. In 1993, she formed (along with other women colleagues from > the APC) the APC Women's Networking Support Programme. In 1995, APC WNSP led > an all women team of 40 to the UN Fourth World Conference on Women, where > they provided email and web access to over 10,000 delegates. With other > women's rights groups, the APC WNSP also successfully lobbied for the > inclusion of 'Media and Communications' as a new chapter in the Beijing > Platform for Action – the first global intergovernmental policy reference > the importance of women's rights to access new technologies. Karen > coordinated the APC WNSP from 1996 to 2004. Since 2004, Karen has managed > various national, regional and global ICT policy advocacy and capacity > building projects and processes for APC. This included coordination of > APC's participation in the WSIS (World Summit in the Information Society), > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and OECD meetings. She is currently a > trustee of Privacy International (an international privacy rights and civil > liberties watchdog based in the UK), was a member of the WSIS Working Group > on Internet Governance (WGIG) and was awarded the Anita Borg Social Impact > Award with the APCWNSP in 2004. > > *Africa*: > > *Fatimata Seye Sylla* > > Fatimata Seye Sylla holds a Master of Science from the Media Lab at > Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a DUT in Computer Science from > IUT du Havre in France, a Certificate of Business Administration from CESAG, > Dakar, the regional management school for Africa. > > After several years of experience in the field of ICT for development in > Africa, she is now the National Coordinator of the USAID/EDB project, in > charge of the integration of ICTs in teaching/learning practices in Middle > Schools for quality education in Senegal. > > Madam Sylla is the author of several publications and studies in the fields > of ICT, Education, gender and development, ICT and democracy and Internet > Governance. She is a founder member of several associations (ISOC Senegal, > OSIRIS, FOSSFA, ACSIS, REGENTIC, Bokk Jang). She was nominated member of the > ICANN At-Large Advisory Committee (ICANN ALAC) on November 2007 and also > elected President of the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) in > 2009. > > Fatimata participated actively in the World Summit on Information Society > (WSIS) since the first PrepCom of its first phase. She also participated in > all the IGF editions at the national, regional and international levels. > > *Ben Akoh* > > Ben Akoh works as a Project Manager with IISD’s Global Connectivity > program. His duties include research, policy analysis, recommendations and > capacity building on the development and deployment of Information and > Communications Technologies (ICTs) and the Internet pertaining to their role > in supporting sustainable development nationally and internationally. His > recent positions have included Program Manager, ICT/Media, Open Society > Initiative for West Africa (Soros Foundation) in Dakar, Senegal. > > *Asia*: > > *Parminder Jeet Singh* > > Parminder Jeet Singh is the Executive Director of IT for Change – a > Bangalore based NGO (*www.ITforChange.net* ), > which works on information society issues from the stand point of equity and > social justice. IT for Change is involved in research, advocacy and field > projects, and works from global to national to local levels. > > Parminder Jeet Singh has worked for close to a decade with the government > of India. This has helped him develop a good understand of Indian governance > and political systems. He also designed and led some important e-governance > projects during this stint. He was invited to INSEAD business school in > France to work on a research project looking at the promise of the Internet > for community driven governance reform. He co-authored a book * > 'Government at Net* <%27Government at Net>: New Governance Opportunities for > India' (Sage Publications 2002) . > > He later worked in a consultancy capacity with NGOs on ICT for development > and e-governance before becoming associated with IT for Change in 2003. At > IT for Change, he leads its field activity done through the Centre for > Community Informatics and Development. He is also the coordinator of the > research and advocacy project 'Information Society for the South'. He has > authored numerous papers on ICTs for development, e-governance and the > political economy of information society. > > Parminder has been the Coordinator of Civil Society Internet Governance > Forum. At present is a Special Advisor to the Chair of the Multi-stakeholder > Advisory Group of the Internet Governance Forum, and a member of the > Strategy Council of the Global Alliance on ICTs and Development. He is also > in advisory groups of a couple of global civil society initiatives in the > area of information society. > > *LAC*: > > *Katitza Rodríguez* > > Peruvian based in San Francisco, Katitza is the Electronic Frontier > Foundation's International Rights Director. In this capacity she > concentrates on comparative policy and legal analysis of international > privacy issues, with special emphasis on law enforcement, government > surveillance, and cross border data flows. Her work in EFF's International > Program also focuses on cybersecurity at the intersection of privacy, > freedom of expression, and copyright enforcement. Before joining EFF, > Katitza was Director of the international privacy program at the Electronic > Privacy Information Center in Washington D.C., where amongst other things, > she served as the Research Director of The Privacy and Human Rights Report, > an international survey of privacy law and developments in 78 countries, and > she served as the civil society liaison while at EPIC from 2009 to March > 2010. > > *Valeria Betancourt* > > Activist in the field of ICTs for development and social justice. Her work > with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) has focused on ICT > policies and internet rights in the context of development countries in > Latin America. She has concentrated in facilitating engagement of civil > society organizations in ICT policy processes. Her efforts are centered > around regionalizing the IGF process by promoting a regional platform for > policy dialogue among different stakeholders. Currently, Valeria is a member > of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group and has a seat as civil society > observer in the eLAC coordination board. Valeria has a background in > Sociology and Political Science and holds a Masters Degree in Cultural > Studies and Communication. > > > > On 23-Aug-10, at 6:46 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > As of now, I have the following list in order of nomination--please > correct if there are any errors, and start thinking about narrowing the list > to 4 suggestions that we will send to the Secretariat. I apologize for the > previous error in omitting Fouad, who was our first nomination. > > If there are any other nominations, please do post as soon as possible. > Thanks! > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (not yet confirmed) > > Best, Ginger > > > ---- > > Chad Lubelsky - Global networking, policy and advocacy coordinator > Association for Progressive Communications > Montreal, Canada > chad at apc.org - +1 514 603 3382 > > --- > > APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org > Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! > ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! > Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Aug 25 09:02:29 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:02:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Nomination In-Reply-To: <2E8CD59A029D48489DE278E8C1DFB6A9@ceo> References: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> <2E8CD59A029D48489DE278E8C1DFB6A9@ceo> Message-ID: I definitely support this excellent proposal for Parminder Louis Pouzin - - - On 8/23/10, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: > I strongly support to Mike proposal regarding Parminder as one of the CS > presenters > > Bazlu > _______________________ > AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR > Chief Executive Officer > Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) > [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] > & > Head, Community Radio Academy > > House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 > Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh > > Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 > Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 > E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Gurstein" > To: > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:47 PM > Subject: [governance] Nomination > > >> >> I'ld like to suggest Parminder as one of the CS presenters. >> >> Mike >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Wed Aug 25 09:23:58 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:23:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> Message-ID: I support the nomination of Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla. Louis Pouzin - - - On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Ginger, > > > > And what about Africa ??? > > > > I nominate Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla from Senegal > > > > *------------------------------------------------------------* > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Vice Chairman of *CIC* > > *W*orld* F*ederation of *E*ngineering *O*rganizations > > *Phone :* + 216 70 825 231 > > *Mobile :* + 216 98 330 114 > > *Fax :* + 216 70 825 231 > > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Aug 25 10:51:47 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:51:47 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Nomination In-Reply-To: References: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> <2E8CD59A029D48489DE278E8C1DFB6A9@ceo> Message-ID: <13582515.19350.1282747907012.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k33> Dear all I join Louis' opinion and wish all the best to Parminder as a speaker representative of CS in the framework of IGF. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 25/08/10 15:02 > De : "Pouzin (well)" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org > Copie à : "Michael Gurstein" , "Baudouin" > Objet : [governance] Nomination > > > I definitely support this excellent proposal for Parminder > Louis Pouzin > - - - > > On 8/23/10, AHM Bazlur Rahman wrote: > > I strongly support to Mike proposal regarding Parminder as one of the CS > > presenters > > > > Bazlu > > _______________________ > > AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR > > Chief Executive Officer > > Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) > > [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] > > & > > Head, Community Radio Academy > > > > House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 > > Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh > > > > Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 > > Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 > > E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Michael Gurstein" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:47 PM > > Subject: [governance] Nomination > > > > > >> > >> I'ld like to suggest Parminder as one of the CS presenters. > >> > >> Mike > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Wed Aug 25 10:53:45 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:53:45 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <7E87EA06-F92D-45CD-8220-613725B0137F@apc.org> <4C6C3115.4020305@nic.br> <4C6C368E.6010302@nic.br> <4C6C4615.6070007@paque.net> Message-ID: <20944355.19387.1282748025890.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k33> So do I Jean-Louis Fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 25/08/10 15:24 > De : "Pouzin (well)" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" > Copie à : > Objet : [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing > > I support the nomination of Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla. > Louis Pouzin > - - - > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Tijani BEN JEMAA wrote: > Ginger,   And what about Africa ???   I nominate Mrs Fatimata Seye Sylla from Senegal   > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Tijani BEN JEMAA > Vice Chairman of CIC > World Federation of Engineering Organizations > Phone : + 216 70 825 231 > Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 > Fax     : + 216 70 825 231 > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 11:19:48 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:19:48 +0500 Subject: [governance] Nomination In-Reply-To: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> References: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> Message-ID: A hundred percent YES support for Parminder from me! - Fouad On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > I'ld like to suggest Parminder as one of the CS presenters. > > Mike > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 12:06:01 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:36:01 -0430 Subject: Fwd: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and Message-ID: <4C753F69.2010103@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From Ginger at paque.net Wed Aug 25 12:42:39 2010 From: Ginger at paque.net (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:12:39 -0430 Subject: : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C753F69.2010103@gmail.com> References: <4C753F69.2010103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C7547FF.90007@paque.net> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 12:48:00 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:18:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: <166832.36281.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4C740E9C.50503@gmail.com> <166832.36281.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4C754940.7050305@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 13:17:27 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:47:27 -0430 Subject: Fwd: : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and Message-ID: <4C755027.8030202@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 14:11:13 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 14:11:13 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: <4C754940.7050305@gmail.com> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4C740E9C.50503@gmail.com> <166832.36281.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4C754940.7050305@gmail.com> Message-ID: Below is just a couple paragraphs that give a topic or title for an address that "frames" things in what I believe is both justified as well as mandatory (because of treaty acceptance as well as inalienable rights) for member states of the United Nations. Note that while I provide a conceptual introductory paragraph the entire content is left open. Not that this group couldn't suggest or require specific content if that were its wish, but that my focus is to suggest what I feel is both the proper and indeed mandatory general method of approach, given the structure of the United Nations and treaties such as the UNHDR. == TOPIC / TITLE FOR ADDRESS: The Global Internet: Keeping Our Word on (and Making Real) the Promises of the United Nations' Members INTRO: Is there any country prepared today to denounce the agreement of 192 member nations? This agreement ratified by 192 nations is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the most successful treaty in world history in terms of acceptance. As always, the law is hardly needed except in areas where violations can occur, and human rights violations do occur. That does not indicate or prove it is time to give up on enforcing human rights, or else violations lead to the absurd result of abandoning all hope, which is the sign above the door in Dante's Hell. Quite the opposite, the rights agreed to by so many member nations are a light unto the world, a guide, and specifically a mandatory charter we are all called not only to publicize these "common standards for achievement" worldwide, but specifically "by PROGRESSIVE measures, national and international, TO SECURE their universal and effective recognition and observance." As we make Progress on the Internet, we're encouraged that it is easier to build things correctly the first time then it is to take a finished structure and re-design it. As the internet is continually built and rebuilt we have that advantage, and in any case applying the Charter and Human Rights universally and progressively not just to member states but to any peoples and instruments under their control is our highest opportunity and responsibility. My comments today reflect the status of internet governance in light of our charge and that which of course comes with any action of the United Nations: the all-important context of the mission and especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights accepted as our common standard and vision for the people of the world: [Individual issues addressed here in light of rights. Including, perhaps, whether a new article or document spelling out merely for purposes of making their application as crystal clear as possible, the requirements of already existing human rights as applied to the specific new context of the internet. In the main, the theme is "Making it real: Rights and the promise of the Internet." ] END on echo of INTRO above of common standards and commitment to rights, with reference to internal content of the speech above. == Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/25/10, Ginger Paque wrote: > We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you discuss, > support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread, may we please > have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing) topics and main points > to be made? > > We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal consensus > that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with main points as > defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree, particularly if you > are a nominated speaker, please post your views as well. > > Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger > > > On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: >> >> Ginger, >> >> When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that made >> an impact, I usually just remember the substance. And on some I remember >> the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were speaking >> from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could not say in what >> capacity. I remember "I have a dream" but I do not even know in what >> capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made some I loved but as a >> student and I know this includes the great Ghandijji also but before >> Independence, so in what role I do not know. >> >> Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite. Whether >> the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and not the >> messenger. Let us hear what our best contributors have to say, let them >> strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further dialogue and deeper >> thought. Only the power of their words - or the absence of, will >> determine if they speak for the greater community. >> >> As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators will >> ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence. I participated in the >> vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them with an >> empowerment to do their best and they have honored that trust. >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Ginger Paque >> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango ; Jeremy >> Malcolm >> Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and >> Paul's >> >> This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and important >> discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we should consider >> this carefully. >> >> The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely >> opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with a >> critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help the >> IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS. >> >> However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, we >> must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not (imho) any >> longer be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so the >> presentations must necessarily be very carefully prepared. >> >> May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as >> suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in favor? >> >> Thanks to everyone, >> Best, Ginger >> >> On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> >>> Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, >>> >>> I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my understanding >>> of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention of friends here. >>> >>> However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF open >>> consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely allowed >>> to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why would it not be >>> possible and useful for the IGF itself ? >>> >>> The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - >>> legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among prominent >>> members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and the road >>> forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection of speakers >>> should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus another but an >>> opportunity to identify elements of consensus and possible alternative >>> options to nurture the debate. >>> >>> Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and elements >>> of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to have an >>> in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we have not >>> conducted so far in a structured manner. >>> >>> In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to >>> reformulate the proposal as follows : >>> >>> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and >>> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and >>> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have >>> a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) >>> >>> 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was maybe a >>> bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them identify the >>> main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and the potential >>> points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to Mawaki's idea of >>> "talking points" >>> >>> As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline and >>> this would be very useful preparatory work for the next milestones during >>> the end of the year. >>> >>> Hope this helps. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >>>> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >>>> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in >>>> the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and >>>> frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >>>> >>>> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >>>> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this >>>> is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to >>>> reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while >>>> emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any. >>>> I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of >>>> talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but >>>> really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >>>> >>>> Just my opinion. >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>>> wrote: >>>> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >>>> > message is >>>> > the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the >>>> > issues >>>> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and >>>> > the >>>> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC >>>> > proposes a >>>> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to >>>> > draft >>>> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities >>>> > present in >>>> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >>>> > democracy. >>>> > >>>> > I agree up until now, but... >>>> > >>>> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as >>>> > has >>>> > successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for >>>> > people >>>> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >>>> > >>>> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you >>>> > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and >>>> > closing >>>> > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC >>>> > statements and >>>> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >>>> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding >>>> > they will >>>> > not depart too radically from our general views. >>>> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as >>>> > your >>>> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for >>>> > her >>>> > views and also invite others to comment. >>>> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some >>>> > hours >>>> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> > >>>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________ >>> 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") > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 15:11:34 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:11:34 -0700 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I like very much framing the overall presentation in the context of the UDHR. M -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:11 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers Below is just a couple paragraphs that give a topic or title for an address that "frames" things in what I believe is both justified as well as mandatory (because of treaty acceptance as well as inalienable rights) for member states of the United Nations. Note that while I provide a conceptual introductory paragraph the entire content is left open. Not that this group couldn't suggest or require specific content if that were its wish, but that my focus is to suggest what I feel is both the proper and indeed mandatory general method of approach, given the structure of the United Nations and treaties such as the UNHDR. == TOPIC / TITLE FOR ADDRESS: The Global Internet: Keeping Our Word on (and Making Real) the Promises of the United Nations' Members INTRO: Is there any country prepared today to denounce the agreement of 192 member nations? This agreement ratified by 192 nations is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the most successful treaty in world history in terms of acceptance. As always, the law is hardly needed except in areas where violations can occur, and human rights violations do occur. That does not indicate or prove it is time to give up on enforcing human rights, or else violations lead to the absurd result of abandoning all hope, which is the sign above the door in Dante's Hell. Quite the opposite, the rights agreed to by so many member nations are a light unto the world, a guide, and specifically a mandatory charter we are all called not only to publicize these "common standards for achievement" worldwide, but specifically "by PROGRESSIVE measures, national and international, TO SECURE their universal and effective recognition and observance." As we make Progress on the Internet, we're encouraged that it is easier to build things correctly the first time then it is to take a finished structure and re-design it. As the internet is continually built and rebuilt we have that advantage, and in any case applying the Charter and Human Rights universally and progressively not just to member states but to any peoples and instruments under their control is our highest opportunity and responsibility. My comments today reflect the status of internet governance in light of our charge and that which of course comes with any action of the United Nations: the all-important context of the mission and especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights accepted as our common standard and vision for the people of the world: [Individual issues addressed here in light of rights. Including, perhaps, whether a new article or document spelling out merely for purposes of making their application as crystal clear as possible, the requirements of already existing human rights as applied to the specific new context of the internet. In the main, the theme is "Making it real: Rights and the promise of the Internet." ] END on echo of INTRO above of common standards and commitment to rights, with reference to internal content of the speech above. == Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/25/10, Ginger Paque wrote: > We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you > discuss, support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread, > may we please have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing) > topics and main points to be made? > > We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal > consensus that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with > main points as defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree, > particularly if you are a nominated speaker, please post your views as > well. > > Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger > > > On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: >> >> Ginger, >> >> When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that >> made an impact, I usually just remember the substance. And on some I >> remember the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were >> speaking from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could >> not say in what capacity. I remember "I have a dream" but I do not >> even know in what capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made >> some I loved but as a student and I know this includes the great >> Ghandijji also but before Independence, so in what role I do not >> know. >> >> Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite. >> Whether the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and >> not the messenger. Let us hear what our best contributors have to >> say, let them strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further >> dialogue and deeper thought. Only the power of their words - or the >> absence of, will determine if they speak for the greater community. >> >> As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators >> will ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence. I participated >> in the vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them >> with an empowerment to do their best and they have honored that >> trust. >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Ginger Paque >> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango ; >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and >> Paul's >> >> This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and >> important discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we >> should consider this carefully. >> >> The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely >> opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with >> a critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help >> the IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS. >> >> However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, >> we must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not >> (imho) any longer be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so >> the presentations must necessarily be very carefully prepared. >> >> May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as >> suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in >> favor? >> >> Thanks to everyone, >> Best, Ginger >> >> On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> >>> Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, >>> >>> I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my >>> understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention >>> of friends here. >>> >>> However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF >>> open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely >>> allowed to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why >>> would it not be possible and useful for the IGF itself ? >>> >>> The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - >>> legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among >>> prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and >>> the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection >>> of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus >>> another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and >>> possible alternative options to nurture the debate. >>> >>> Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and >>> elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to >>> have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we >>> have not conducted so far in a structured manner. >>> >>> In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to >>> reformulate the proposal as follows : >>> >>> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger >>> and >>> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and >>> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have >>> a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) >>> >>> 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was >>> maybe a bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them >>> identify the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and >>> the potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to >>> Mawaki's idea of "talking points" >>> >>> As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline >>> and this would be very useful preparatory work for the next >>> milestones during the end of the year. >>> >>> Hope this helps. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >>>> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >>>> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) >>>> in the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember >>>> (and frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >>>> >>>> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >>>> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that >>>> this is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try >>>> to reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community >>>> while emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there >>>> are any. I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a >>>> couple of talking points (for the most important issues on the >>>> agenda) but really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >>>> >>>> Just my opinion. >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>>> wrote: >>>> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >>>> > message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into >>>> > account the issues >>>> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and >>>> > the >>>> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC >>>> > proposes a >>>> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to >>>> > draft >>>> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities >>>> > present in >>>> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >>>> > democracy. >>>> > >>>> > I agree up until now, but... >>>> > >>>> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the >>>> > list, as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >>>> > opportunities for people >>>> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >>>> > >>>> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as >>>> > you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening >>>> > and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated >>>> > as IGC statements and >>>> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >>>> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding >>>> > they will >>>> > not depart too radically from our general views. >>>> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as >>>> > your >>>> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for >>>> > her >>>> > views and also invite others to comment. >>>> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some >>>> > hours >>>> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> > >>>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________ >>> 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") > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 15:17:04 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:17:04 +0500 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: <4C754940.7050305@gmail.com> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4C740E9C.50503@gmail.com> <166832.36281.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4C754940.7050305@gmail.com> Message-ID: What Bertrand mentions is similar to the point that I have occasionally raised that representatives of IGC both in the MAG and in any open consultation/preparatory engagement within the IGF should forward IGC viewpoints. That has been a critical aspect of my interventions. If we are making nominations, the viewpoints of IGC (reached with consensus and mutual agreement and IGC endorsed) should be delivered be delivered at the opening and closing spaces. Despite that fact that we may possibly explore and agree to forward Ginger and Jeremy as IGC Co/Coordinators to deliver IGC viewpoints, we still have to identify and agree to them first and then our representatives can deliver them. We still have substantial time to initiate those Viewpoint discussion threads and attempt reaching consensus. my two cents.. -- Fouad On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you discuss, > support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread, may we please > have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing) topics and main points > to be made? > > We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal consensus > that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with main points as > defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree, particularly if you > are a nominated speaker, please post your views as well. > > Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger > > > On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > > Ginger, > > When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that made > an impact, I usually just remember the substance.  And on some I remember > the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were speaking from. > I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could not say in what > capacity.  I remember "I have a dream" but I do not even know in what > capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made some I loved but as a > student and I know this includes the great Ghandijji also but before > Independence, so in what role I do not know. > > Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite.  Whether > the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and not the > messenger.  Let us hear what our best contributors have to say, let them > strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further dialogue and deeper > thought.  Only the power of their words - or the absence of, will determine > if they speak for the greater community. > > As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators will > ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence.  I participated in the vote > for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them with an empowerment > to do their best and they have honored that trust. > > Eric > > > ________________________________ > From: Ginger Paque > To: Bertrand de La Chapelle > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango ; Jeremy > Malcolm > Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM > Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and Paul's > > This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and important > discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we should consider > this carefully. > > The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely > opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with a > critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help the IGC > mature into a more significant voice for CS. > > However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, we must > also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not (imho) any longer > be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so the presentations must > necessarily be very carefully prepared. > > May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as suggestions > on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in favor? > > Thanks to everyone, > Best, Ginger > > On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, > > I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my understanding of > past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention of friends here. > > However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF open > consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely allowed to > iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why would it not be > possible and useful for the IGF itself ? > > The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - > legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among prominent > members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and the road forward. > Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection of speakers should not > become an implicit vote for one vision versus another but an opportunity to > identify elements of consensus and possible alternative options to nurture > the debate. > > Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and elements of > opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to have an in-depth > discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we have not conducted so far > in a structured manner. > > In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to > reformulate the proposal as follows : > > 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger and > Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and > asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have a > reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) > > 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was maybe a bit > too much,  a preparation on the list could help them identify the main > strategic issues, some consensus formulations and the potential points of > divergence (aka "options"). This is close to Mawaki's idea of "talking > points" > > As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline and this > would be very useful preparatory work for the next milestones during the end > of the year. > > Hope this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) in >> the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember (and >> frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >> >> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that this >> is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try to >> reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community while >> emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there are any. >> I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a couple of >> talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) but >> really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >> >> Just my opinion. >> >> Mawaki >> >> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >> > wrote: >> > >> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >> > message is >> > the most important and it has : a) to fully take into account the issues >> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and >> > the >> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC proposes >> > a >> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to >> > draft >> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities present >> > in >> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >> > democracy. >> > >> > I agree up until now, but... >> > >> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the list, as >> > has >> > successfully been done in the past, with sufficient opportunities for >> > people >> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >> > >> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as you >> > describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening and >> > closing >> > civil society statements, which have not been treated as IGC statements >> > and >> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding they >> > will >> > not depart too radically from our general views. >> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as >> > your >> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for her >> > views and also invite others to comment. >> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some >> > hours >> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign > and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Aug 25 15:23:54 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 21:23:54 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> I support fully to put the Human Rights Declaration into the Center. However, the 1948 Declaration is not a legally binding treaty and it was not ratified by UN member states. It was adopted as a "Declaration" in the UN General Assembly. The legal binding document, tjr "treaty" - which needs ratification - is the "International Covenant on Polical and Civil Rights" from 1966. It is ratified by more than 160 UN member states. Just to be legally precise. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] Gesendet: Mi 25.08.2010 21:11 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Paul Lehto' Betreff: RE: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers I like very much framing the overall presentation in the context of the UDHR. M -----Original Message----- From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:11 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers Below is just a couple paragraphs that give a topic or title for an address that "frames" things in what I believe is both justified as well as mandatory (because of treaty acceptance as well as inalienable rights) for member states of the United Nations. Note that while I provide a conceptual introductory paragraph the entire content is left open. Not that this group couldn't suggest or require specific content if that were its wish, but that my focus is to suggest what I feel is both the proper and indeed mandatory general method of approach, given the structure of the United Nations and treaties such as the UNHDR. == TOPIC / TITLE FOR ADDRESS: The Global Internet: Keeping Our Word on (and Making Real) the Promises of the United Nations' Members INTRO: Is there any country prepared today to denounce the agreement of 192 member nations? This agreement ratified by 192 nations is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the most successful treaty in world history in terms of acceptance. As always, the law is hardly needed except in areas where violations can occur, and human rights violations do occur. That does not indicate or prove it is time to give up on enforcing human rights, or else violations lead to the absurd result of abandoning all hope, which is the sign above the door in Dante's Hell. Quite the opposite, the rights agreed to by so many member nations are a light unto the world, a guide, and specifically a mandatory charter we are all called not only to publicize these "common standards for achievement" worldwide, but specifically "by PROGRESSIVE measures, national and international, TO SECURE their universal and effective recognition and observance." As we make Progress on the Internet, we're encouraged that it is easier to build things correctly the first time then it is to take a finished structure and re-design it. As the internet is continually built and rebuilt we have that advantage, and in any case applying the Charter and Human Rights universally and progressively not just to member states but to any peoples and instruments under their control is our highest opportunity and responsibility. My comments today reflect the status of internet governance in light of our charge and that which of course comes with any action of the United Nations: the all-important context of the mission and especially the Universal Declaration of Human Rights accepted as our common standard and vision for the people of the world: [Individual issues addressed here in light of rights. Including, perhaps, whether a new article or document spelling out merely for purposes of making their application as crystal clear as possible, the requirements of already existing human rights as applied to the specific new context of the internet. In the main, the theme is "Making it real: Rights and the promise of the Internet." ] END on echo of INTRO above of common standards and commitment to rights, with reference to internal content of the speech above. == Paul Lehto, J.D. On 8/25/10, Ginger Paque wrote: > We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you > discuss, support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread, > may we please have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing) > topics and main points to be made? > > We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal > consensus that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with > main points as defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree, > particularly if you are a nominated speaker, please post your views as > well. > > Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger > > > On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: >> >> Ginger, >> >> When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that >> made an impact, I usually just remember the substance. And on some I >> remember the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were >> speaking from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could >> not say in what capacity. I remember "I have a dream" but I do not >> even know in what capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made >> some I loved but as a student and I know this includes the great >> Ghandijji also but before Independence, so in what role I do not >> know. >> >> Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite. >> Whether the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and >> not the messenger. Let us hear what our best contributors have to >> say, let them strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further >> dialogue and deeper thought. Only the power of their words - or the >> absence of, will determine if they speak for the greater community. >> >> As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators >> will ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence. I participated >> in the vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them >> with an empowerment to do their best and they have honored that >> trust. >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Ginger Paque >> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango ; >> Jeremy Malcolm >> Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM >> Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and >> Paul's >> >> This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and >> important discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we >> should consider this carefully. >> >> The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely >> opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with >> a critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help >> the IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS. >> >> However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, >> we must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not >> (imho) any longer be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so >> the presentations must necessarily be very carefully prepared. >> >> May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as >> suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in >> favor? >> >> Thanks to everyone, >> Best, Ginger >> >> On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>> >>> Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, >>> >>> I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my >>> understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention >>> of friends here. >>> >>> However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF >>> open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely >>> allowed to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why >>> would it not be possible and useful for the IGF itself ? >>> >>> The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - >>> legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among >>> prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and >>> the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection >>> of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus >>> another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and >>> possible alternative options to nurture the debate. >>> >>> Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and >>> elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to >>> have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we >>> have not conducted so far in a structured manner. >>> >>> In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to >>> reformulate the proposal as follows : >>> >>> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger >>> and >>> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and >>> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have >>> a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) >>> >>> 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was >>> maybe a bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them >>> identify the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and >>> the potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to >>> Mawaki's idea of "talking points" >>> >>> As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline >>> and this would be very useful preparatory work for the next >>> milestones during the end of the year. >>> >>> Hope this helps. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >>>> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >>>> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) >>>> in the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember >>>> (and frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >>>> >>>> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >>>> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that >>>> this is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try >>>> to reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community >>>> while emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there >>>> are any. I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a >>>> couple of talking points (for the most important issues on the >>>> agenda) but really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >>>> >>>> Just my opinion. >>>> >>>> Mawaki >>>> >>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>>> wrote: >>>> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >>>> > message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into >>>> > account the issues >>>> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA and >>>> > the >>>> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC >>>> > proposes a >>>> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to >>>> > draft >>>> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities >>>> > present in >>>> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >>>> > democracy. >>>> > >>>> > I agree up until now, but... >>>> > >>>> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the >>>> > list, as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >>>> > opportunities for people >>>> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >>>> > >>>> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as >>>> > you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening >>>> > and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated >>>> > as IGC statements and >>>> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >>>> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding >>>> > they will >>>> > not depart too radically from our general views. >>>> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as >>>> > your >>>> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for >>>> > her >>>> > views and also invite others to comment. >>>> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some >>>> > hours >>>> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> > >>>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> > >>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> > >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ____________________ >>> 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") > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 16:55:31 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:55:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Per the below, the UDHR is most certainly binding international law, regardless of the existence of a signed treaty. I only point to signatures on treaties for the purpose of establishing yet another level: binding agreement and consent in light of my statement at the outset that no one wants to expressly and publicly distance themselves from these rights. comments interwoven: On 8/25/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > I support fully to put the Human Rights Declaration into the Center. Present company excepted, it's difficult indeed for anyone not to support it. Opposing it immediately exposes those who oppose it. It's thus safe territory to take a position within, since anyone outside it's territory by their own admission is an out-law. > However, the 1948 Declaration is not a legally binding treaty and it was not > ratified by UN member states. It was adopted as a "Declaration" in the UN > General Assembly. The legal binding document, tjr "treaty" - which needs > ratification - is the "International Covenant on Polical and Civil Rights" > from 1966. It is ratified by more than 160 UN member states. Just to be > legally precise. This is a move toward greater accuracy, but misleading in where it ends up (with the idea that the UDHR is "not ...legally binding.") It is binding, and I've provided a quick quote from the chair of the UDHR effort's site further below in support. Legal precision requires that we note that while the "declaration" was not thought of by most as binding AT THE TIME, it has grown to become so. See www.udhr.org (Eleanor Roosevelt foundation's site, and she essentially chaired the UDHR effort). While the udhr.org site I just linked to is also technically "not law" it summarizes concisely my understanding of the law (based on primary sources in international law) of the status of the UDHR. As you note, the International Covenent on Political and Civil Rights is undoubtedly a treaty and so it makes this discussion somewhat moot, except that the UDHR is far better known and a better document to organize around, coming out of the experience and the ashes of WWII, given that they are both enforceable in any international court of justice, to be sure, and a core characteristic of a rogue state is one not recognizing this in their domestic courts. Even treaty cancellation by a nation-state would be ineffective to eliminate its obligations regarding the UDHR rights because they are part of customary international law (see below) which is binding without necessity of a treat. -----start quote "Questions" page http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm -------- What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the primary international articulation of the fundamental and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, the UDHR represents the first comprehensive agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all human beings. [...] Originally intended as a "common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", over the past fifty years the Universal Declaration has become a cornerstone of customary international law, and all governments are now bound to apply its principles. Because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights successfully encompasses legal, moral and philosophical beliefs held true by all peoples, it has become a living document which asserts its own elevating force on the events of our world. Are governments legally required to respect the principles outlined in the UDHR? Yes. While the record shows that most of those who adopted the UDHR did not imagine it to be a legally binding document, the legal impact of the Universal Declaration has been much greater than perhaps any of its framers had imagined. Today, direct reference to the UDHR is made in the constitutions of many nations that realized their independence after the document was adopted. Prime ministers, presidents, legislators, judges, lawyers, legal scholars, human rights activists and ordinary people throughout the world have accepted the Universal Declaration as an essential legal code. Dozens of legally binding international treaties are based on the principles set forth in the UDHR, and the document has been cited as justification for numerous United Nations actions, including acts of the Security Council. As oppressed individuals turn increasingly to the Universal Declaration for protection and relief, so governments have come to accept the document not just as a noble aspiration, but as a standard that must be realized. Because it is universal, a central and integral part of our international legal structure, the Universal Declaration is widely accepted as a primary building block of customary international law -- an indispensable tool in upholding human rights for all. -----end quote from udhr.org ----------------------------- "Customary international law", jus cogens, inalienable rights and fundamental human rights are closely related terms in this context. By "Customary international law" it means that the core provisions are binding WITHOUT REGARD TO TREATY. Thus for example, prohibitions on torture are binding quite without regard to treaty ratification since they are most often intentional crimes under cover of law and authority. National laws to the contrary are void. As I wrote before, there's no higher law than this. The UDHR recognizes the pre-existence of "inalienable" rights -- rights that can't be lost or forfeited and thus treaties are irrelevant except as guiding articulations -- and the initial treatment of the UDHR as "declaration" supports this and in fact makes the UDHR stronger by showing that the inalienable rights do not come from governmental action, but are ones we're endowed with by nature of our humanity, or endowed with "by our Creator", or by natural law -- any source is just fine as long as it's one that governments individually or collectively can not tamper with and thus take away those inalienable rights. UDHR.org: Can the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be enforced? ANSWER: Yes. [...] http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm UDHR.org: Are all rights in the Universal Declaration regarded as equally important? ANSWER: Yes [...though the two covenants cause some confusion...] http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm Paul Lehto, J.D. > ________________________________ > > Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Mi 25.08.2010 21:11 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Paul Lehto' > Betreff: RE: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers > > > > I like very much framing the overall presentation in the context of the > UDHR. > > M > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:11 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Cc: Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers > > > Below is just a couple paragraphs that give a topic or title for an address > that "frames" things in what I believe is both justified as well as > mandatory (because of treaty acceptance as well as inalienable > rights) for member states of the United Nations. Note that while I provide > a conceptual introductory paragraph the entire content is left open. Not > that this group couldn't suggest or require specific content if that were > its wish, but that my focus is to suggest what I feel is both the proper and > indeed mandatory general method of approach, given the structure of the > United Nations and treaties such as the UNHDR. > > == > > TOPIC / TITLE FOR ADDRESS: The Global Internet: Keeping Our Word on > (and Making Real) the Promises of the United Nations' Members > > INTRO: Is there any country prepared today to denounce the agreement of 192 > member nations? This agreement ratified by 192 nations is the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights, the most successful treaty in world history in > terms of acceptance. As always, the law is hardly needed except in areas > where violations can occur, and human rights violations do occur. That does > not indicate or prove it is time to give up on enforcing human rights, or > else violations lead to the absurd result of abandoning all hope, which is > the sign above the door in Dante's Hell. Quite the opposite, the rights > agreed to by so many member nations are a light unto the world, a guide, and > specifically a mandatory charter we are all called not only to publicize > these "common standards for achievement" worldwide, but specifically "by > PROGRESSIVE measures, national and international, TO SECURE their universal > and effective recognition and observance." As we make Progress on the > Internet, we're encouraged that it is easier to build things correctly the > first time then it is to take a finished structure and re-design it. As the > internet is continually built and rebuilt we have that advantage, and in any > case applying the Charter and Human Rights universally and progressively not > just to member states but to any peoples and instruments under their control > is our highest opportunity and responsibility. > > My comments today reflect the status of internet governance in light of our > charge and that which of course comes with any action of the United Nations: > the all-important context of the mission and especially the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights accepted as our common standard and vision for > the people of the world: > > [Individual issues addressed here in light of rights. Including, perhaps, > whether a new article or document spelling out merely for purposes of making > their application as crystal clear as possible, the requirements of already > existing human rights as applied to the specific new context of the > internet. In the main, the theme is "Making it real: Rights and the promise > of the Internet." ] > > END on echo of INTRO above of common standards and commitment to rights, > with reference to internal content of the speech above. == Paul Lehto, J.D. > > On 8/25/10, Ginger Paque wrote: >> We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you >> discuss, support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread, >> may we please have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing) >> topics and main points to be made? >> >> We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal >> consensus that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with >> main points as defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree, >> particularly if you are a nominated speaker, please post your views as >> well. >> >> Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger >> >> >> On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: >>> >>> Ginger, >>> >>> When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that >>> made an impact, I usually just remember the substance. And on some I >>> remember the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were >>> speaking from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could >>> not say in what capacity. I remember "I have a dream" but I do not >>> even know in what capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made >>> some I loved but as a student and I know this includes the great >>> Ghandijji also but before Independence, so in what role I do not >>> know. >>> >>> Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite. >>> Whether the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and >>> not the messenger. Let us hear what our best contributors have to >>> say, let them strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further >>> dialogue and deeper thought. Only the power of their words - or the >>> absence of, will determine if they speak for the greater community. >>> >>> As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators >>> will ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence. I participated >>> in the vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them >>> with an empowerment to do their best and they have honored that >>> trust. >>> >>> Eric >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Ginger Paque >>> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle >>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango ; >>> Jeremy Malcolm >>> Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM >>> Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and >>> Paul's >>> >>> This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and >>> important discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we >>> should consider this carefully. >>> >>> The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely >>> opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with >>> a critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help >>> the IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS. >>> >>> However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, >>> we must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not >>> (imho) any longer be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so >>> the presentations must necessarily be very carefully prepared. >>> >>> May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as >>> suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in >>> favor? >>> >>> Thanks to everyone, >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>>> >>>> Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, >>>> >>>> I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my >>>> understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention >>>> of friends here. >>>> >>>> However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF >>>> open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely >>>> allowed to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why >>>> would it not be possible and useful for the IGF itself ? >>>> >>>> The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - >>>> legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among >>>> prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and >>>> the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection >>>> of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus >>>> another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and >>>> possible alternative options to nurture the debate. >>>> >>>> Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and >>>> elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to >>>> have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we >>>> have not conducted so far in a structured manner. >>>> >>>> In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to >>>> reformulate the proposal as follows : >>>> >>>> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger >>>> and >>>> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and >>>> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have >>>> a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) >>>> >>>> 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was >>>> maybe a bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them >>>> identify the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and >>>> the potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to >>>> Mawaki's idea of "talking points" >>>> >>>> As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline >>>> and this would be very useful preparatory work for the next >>>> milestones during the end of the year. >>>> >>>> Hope this helps. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> >>>> Bertrand >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >>>>> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >>>>> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) >>>>> in the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember >>>>> (and frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >>>>> >>>>> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >>>>> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that >>>>> this is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try >>>>> to reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community >>>>> while emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there >>>>> are any. I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a >>>>> couple of talking points (for the most important issues on the >>>>> agenda) but really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >>>>> >>>>> Just my opinion. >>>>> >>>>> Mawaki >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> wrote: >>>>> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>>> > wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >>>>> > message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into >>>>> > account the issues >>>>> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA > and >>>>> > the >>>>> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC >>>>> > proposes a >>>>> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to >>>>> > draft >>>>> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities >>>>> > present in >>>>> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >>>>> > democracy. >>>>> > >>>>> > I agree up until now, but... >>>>> > >>>>> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the >>>>> > list, as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >>>>> > opportunities for people >>>>> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >>>>> > >>>>> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as >>>>> > you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening >>>>> > and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated >>>>> > as IGC statements and >>>>> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >>>>> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding >>>>> > they will >>>>> > not depart too radically from our general views. >>>>> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as >>>>> > your >>>>> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for >>>>> > her >>>>> > views and also invite others to comment. >>>>> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some >>>>> > hours >>>>> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> > >>>>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> > >>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ____________________ >>>> 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") >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 17:20:06 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:20:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: I'm sure it doesn't hurt to reference both, the treaty for backing. 2010/8/25 Paul Lehto : > Per the below, the UDHR is most certainly binding international law, > regardless of the existence of a signed treaty. I only point to > signatures on treaties for the purpose of establishing yet another > level:  binding agreement and consent in light of my statement at the > outset that no one wants to expressly and publicly distance themselves > from these rights. > > comments interwoven: > On 8/25/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: >> I support fully to put the Human Rights Declaration into the Center. > > Present company excepted, it's difficult indeed for anyone not to > support it. Opposing it immediately exposes those who oppose it.  It's > thus safe territory to take a position within, since anyone outside > it's territory by their own admission is an out-law. > >> However, the 1948 Declaration is not a legally binding treaty and it was not >> ratified by UN member states. It was adopted as a "Declaration" in the UN >> General Assembly. The legal binding document, tjr "treaty" - which needs >> ratification - is the "International Covenant on Polical and Civil Rights" >> from 1966. It is ratified by more than 160 UN member states. Just to be >> legally precise. > > This is a move toward greater accuracy, but misleading in where it > ends up (with the idea that the UDHR is "not ...legally binding.") > It is binding, and I've provided a quick quote from the chair of the > UDHR effort's site further below in support. > > Legal precision requires that we note that while the "declaration" was > not thought of by most as binding AT THE TIME, it has grown to become > so.  See www.udhr.org (Eleanor Roosevelt foundation's site, and she > essentially chaired the UDHR effort). > > While the udhr.org site I just linked to is also technically "not law" > it summarizes concisely my understanding of the law (based on primary > sources in international law) of the status of the UDHR.  As  you > note, the International Covenent on Political and Civil Rights is > undoubtedly a treaty and so it makes this discussion somewhat moot, > except that the UDHR is far better known and a better document to > organize around, coming out of the experience and the ashes of WWII, > given that they are both enforceable in any international court of > justice, to be sure, and a core characteristic of a rogue state is one > not recognizing this in their domestic courts.  Even treaty > cancellation by a nation-state would be ineffective to eliminate its > obligations regarding the UDHR rights because they are part of > customary international law (see below) which is binding without > necessity of a treat. > > -----start quote "Questions" page > http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm -------- > > What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? > The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the primary international > articulation of the fundamental and inalienable rights of all members > of the human family. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on > December 10, 1948, the UDHR represents the first comprehensive > agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all > human beings. > > [...] Originally intended as a "common standard of achievement for all > peoples and all nations", over the past fifty years the Universal > Declaration has become a cornerstone of customary international law, > and all governments are now bound to apply its principles. Because the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights successfully encompasses legal, > moral and philosophical beliefs held true by all peoples, it has > become a living document which asserts its own elevating force on the > events of our world. > > Are governments legally required to respect the principles outlined in the UDHR? > Yes. While the record shows that most of those who adopted the UDHR > did not imagine it to be a legally binding document, the legal impact > of the Universal Declaration has been much greater than perhaps any of > its framers had imagined. > > Today, direct reference to the UDHR is made in the constitutions of > many nations that realized their independence after the document was > adopted. Prime ministers, presidents, legislators, judges, lawyers, > legal scholars, human rights activists and ordinary people throughout > the world have accepted the Universal Declaration as an essential > legal code. Dozens of legally binding international treaties are based > on the principles set forth in the UDHR, and the document has been > cited as justification for numerous United Nations actions, including > acts of the Security Council. > > As oppressed individuals turn increasingly to the Universal > Declaration for protection and relief, so governments have come to > accept the document not just as a noble aspiration, but as a standard > that must be realized. Because it is universal, a central and integral > part of our international legal structure, the Universal Declaration > is widely accepted as a primary building block of customary > international law -- an indispensable tool in upholding human rights > for all. > > -----end quote from udhr.org ----------------------------- > > "Customary international law", jus cogens, inalienable rights and > fundamental human rights are closely related terms in this context. > By "Customary international law" it means that the core provisions are > binding WITHOUT REGARD TO TREATY.  Thus for example, prohibitions on > torture are binding quite without regard to treaty ratification since > they are most often intentional crimes under cover of law and > authority.  National laws to the contrary are void. > > As I wrote before, there's no higher law than this.  The UDHR > recognizes the pre-existence of "inalienable" rights -- rights that > can't be lost or forfeited and thus treaties are irrelevant except as > guiding articulations -- and the initial treatment of the UDHR as > "declaration" supports this and in fact makes the UDHR stronger by > showing that the inalienable rights do not come from governmental > action, but are ones we're endowed with by nature of our humanity, or > endowed with "by our Creator", or by natural law -- any source is just > fine as long as it's one that governments individually or collectively > can not tamper with and thus take away those inalienable rights. > > UDHR.org:  Can the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights be enforced?  ANSWER:  Yes.  [...] > http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm > > UDHR.org:  Are all rights in the Universal Declaration regarded as > equally important? ANSWER: Yes [...though the two covenants cause some > confusion...]  http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Mi 25.08.2010 21:11 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Paul Lehto' >> Betreff: RE: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers >> >> >> >> I like very much framing the overall presentation in the context of the >> UDHR. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:11 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque >> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers >> >> >> Below is just a couple paragraphs that give a topic or title for an address >> that "frames" things in what I believe is both justified as well as >> mandatory (because of treaty acceptance as well as inalienable >> rights) for member states of the United Nations.  Note that while I provide >> a conceptual introductory paragraph the entire content is left open.  Not >> that this group couldn't suggest or require specific content if that were >> its wish, but that my focus is to suggest what I feel is both the proper and >> indeed mandatory general method of approach, given the structure of the >> United Nations and treaties such as the UNHDR. >> >> == >> >> TOPIC / TITLE FOR ADDRESS:   The Global Internet:  Keeping Our Word on >> (and Making Real) the Promises of the United Nations' Members >> >> INTRO:  Is there any country prepared today to denounce the agreement of 192 >> member nations?  This agreement ratified by 192 nations is the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights, the most successful treaty in world history in >> terms of acceptance.  As always, the law is hardly needed except in areas >> where violations can occur, and human rights violations do occur.  That does >> not indicate or prove it is time to give up on enforcing human rights, or >> else violations lead to the absurd result of abandoning all hope, which is >> the sign above the door in Dante's Hell.  Quite the opposite, the rights >> agreed to by so many member nations are a light unto the world, a guide, and >> specifically a mandatory charter we are all called not only to publicize >> these "common standards for achievement" worldwide, but specifically "by >> PROGRESSIVE measures, national and international, TO SECURE their universal >> and effective recognition and observance."  As we make Progress on the >> Internet, we're encouraged that it is easier to build things correctly the >> first time then it is to take a finished structure and re-design it.  As the >> internet is continually built and rebuilt we have that advantage, and in any >> case applying the Charter and Human Rights universally and progressively not >> just to member states but to any peoples and instruments under their control >> is our highest opportunity and responsibility. >> >> My comments today reflect the status of internet governance in light of our >> charge and that which of course comes with any action of the United Nations: >> the all-important context of the mission and especially the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights accepted as our common standard and vision for >> the people of the world: >> >> [Individual issues addressed here in light of rights.  Including, perhaps, >> whether a new article or document spelling out merely for purposes of making >> their application as crystal clear as possible, the requirements of already >> existing human rights as applied to the specific new context of the >> internet.  In the main, the theme is "Making it real: Rights and the promise >> of the Internet." ] >> >> END on echo of INTRO above of common standards and commitment to rights, >> with reference to internal content of the speech above. == Paul Lehto, J.D. >> >> On 8/25/10, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you >>> discuss, support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread, >>> may we please have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing) >>> topics and main points to be made? >>> >>> We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal >>> consensus that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with >>> main points as defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree, >>> particularly if you are a nominated speaker, please post your views as >>> well. >>> >>> Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: >>>> >>>> Ginger, >>>> >>>> When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that >>>> made an impact, I usually just remember the substance.  And on some I >>>> remember the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were >>>> speaking from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could >>>> not say in what capacity.  I remember "I have a dream" but I do not >>>> even know in what capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made >>>> some I loved but as a student and I know this includes the great >>>> Ghandijji also but before Independence, so in what role I do not >>>> know. >>>> >>>> Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite. >>>> Whether the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and >>>> not the messenger.  Let us hear what our best contributors have to >>>> say, let them strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further >>>> dialogue and deeper thought.  Only the power of their words - or the >>>> absence of, will determine if they speak for the greater community. >>>> >>>> As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators >>>> will ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence.  I participated >>>> in the vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them >>>> with an empowerment to do their best and they have honored that >>>> trust. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Ginger Paque >>>> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango ; >>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and >>>> Paul's >>>> >>>> This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and >>>> important discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we >>>> should consider this carefully. >>>> >>>> The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely >>>> opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with >>>> a critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help >>>> the IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS. >>>> >>>> However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, >>>> we must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not >>>> (imho) any longer be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so >>>> the presentations must necessarily be very carefully prepared. >>>> >>>> May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as >>>> suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in >>>> favor? >>>> >>>> Thanks to everyone, >>>> Best, Ginger >>>> >>>> On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, >>>>> >>>>> I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my >>>>> understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention >>>>> of friends here. >>>>> >>>>> However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF >>>>> open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely >>>>> allowed to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why >>>>> would it not be possible and useful for the IGF itself ? >>>>> >>>>> The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - >>>>> legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among >>>>> prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and >>>>> the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection >>>>> of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus >>>>> another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and >>>>> possible alternative options to nurture the debate. >>>>> >>>>> Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and >>>>> elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to >>>>> have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we >>>>> have not conducted so far in a structured manner. >>>>> >>>>> In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to >>>>> reformulate the proposal as follows : >>>>> >>>>> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger >>>>> and >>>>> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and >>>>> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have >>>>> a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) >>>>> >>>>> 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was >>>>> maybe a bit too much,  a preparation on the list could help them >>>>> identify the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and >>>>> the potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to >>>>> Mawaki's idea of "talking points" >>>>> >>>>> As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline >>>>> and this would be very useful preparatory work for the next >>>>> milestones during the end of the year. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Bertrand >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >>>>>> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >>>>>> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) >>>>>> in the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember >>>>>> (and frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >>>>>> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that >>>>>> this is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try >>>>>> to reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community >>>>>> while emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there >>>>>> are any. I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a >>>>>> couple of talking points (for the most important issues on the >>>>>> agenda) but really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just my opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mawaki >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> > >>>>>> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >>>>>> > message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into >>>>>> > account the issues >>>>>> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA >> and >>>>>> > the >>>>>> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC >>>>>> > proposes a >>>>>> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to >>>>>> > draft >>>>>> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities >>>>>> > present in >>>>>> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >>>>>> > democracy. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > I agree up until now, but... >>>>>> > >>>>>> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the >>>>>> > list, as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >>>>>> > opportunities for people >>>>>> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >>>>>> > >>>>>> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as >>>>>> > you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening >>>>>> > and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated >>>>>> > as IGC statements and >>>>>> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >>>>>> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding >>>>>> > they will >>>>>> > not depart too radically from our general views. >>>>>> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as >>>>>> > your >>>>>> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for >>>>>> > her >>>>>> > views and also invite others to comment. >>>>>> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some >>>>>> > hours >>>>>> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> > >>>>>> > For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> > >>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> > >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ____________________ >>>>> 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") >>> >> >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI  49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI  49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 17:27:10 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:27:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the treaty called the International Covenent on Civil and Political Rights, On 8/25/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I'm sure it doesn't hurt to reference both, the treaty for backing. ANSWER: It does hurt if it is worded in such a way as to leave open the inference that the ratification or acceptance by treaty is what makes human rights binding on all nations, because that gives each nation both a power of unilateral veto as well as an implied power of totalitarian authority over all people under its control. But yes, properly worded, the UDHR alone is enough and binding on all nations under customary international law, and the Covenant as well as other treaties are like adding suspenders on top of a strong belt. > > 2010/8/25 Paul Lehto : >> Per the below, the UDHR is most certainly binding international law, >> regardless of the existence of a signed treaty. I only point to >> signatures on treaties for the purpose of establishing yet another >> level: binding agreement and consent in light of my statement at the >> outset that no one wants to expressly and publicly distance themselves >> from these rights. >> [snip] -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From kichango at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 18:45:39 2010 From: kichango at gmail.com (Mawaki Chango) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:45:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: I'm sure our drafters will now pay careful attention to this matter. To my edification, I never knew the Covenents (especially in the post cold war era and understanding) may be seen as weakening, or creating a contradiction with, the UDHR. I've been part of policy development processes where all those legal instruments were referenced in the same resolution (with the push of other lawyers or law experts). But as you know, lawyers are great interpreters. If your peers agree and maybe more importantly if practice shows that UDHR is enough and the Covenents will only complicate the matter, then obviously... Thanks for the clarifications. Mawaki On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: > Referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the treaty > called the International Covenent on Civil and Political Rights, On > 8/25/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > >> I'm sure it doesn't hurt to reference both,  the treaty for backing. > > ANSWER:  It does hurt if it is worded in such a way as to leave open > the inference that the ratification or acceptance by treaty is what > makes human rights binding on all nations, because that gives each > nation both a power of unilateral veto as well as an implied power of > totalitarian authority over all people under its control.  But yes, > properly worded, the UDHR alone is enough and binding on all nations > under customary international law, and the Covenant as well as other > treaties are like adding suspenders on top of a strong belt. >> >> 2010/8/25 Paul Lehto : >>> Per the below, the UDHR is most certainly binding international law, >>> regardless of the existence of a signed treaty. I only point to >>> signatures on treaties for the purpose of establishing yet another >>> level:  binding agreement and consent in light of my statement at the >>> outset that no one wants to expressly and publicly distance themselves >>> from these rights. >>> > [snip] > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI  49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Wed Aug 25 18:56:12 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:56:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: What I'm concerned about is the incorrect but quite common idea that a treaty is necessary in order for international law to be binding. This perception greatly slows down global human rights progress, disables people from using their own reason and conscience in favor of checking treaty ratifications, and can undermine the UDHR inappropriately whenever it's written off as a "mere" Declaration. Such "mere declarations" in minor matters would indeed be nonbinding, but not so in the area of core fundamental human rights (incorporated into customary international law). On examination, the notion (not articulated here) that only a treaty can create international law reserves to each nation-state an absolute or totalitarian power to accept or reject what laws apply to it: to define the justice as limited to what it wants and signs off on. Were that the case, the UN-sponsored war crimes tribunals, for example, regarding the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda etc would not be possible in most cases if political leaders were smart enough to revoke treaties prior to violating human rights. Hitler made just that argument: inapplicability outside Germany's express consent via treaty. He lost that argument both on the battlefield and in the courtroom and in the history books. Paul Lehto On 8/25/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: > I'm sure our drafters will now pay careful attention to this matter. > > To my edification, I never knew the Covenents (especially in the post > cold war era and understanding) may be seen as weakening, or creating > a contradiction with, the UDHR. I've been part of policy development > processes where all those legal instruments were referenced in the > same resolution (with the push of other lawyers or law experts). But > as you know, lawyers are great interpreters. > > If your peers agree and maybe more importantly if practice shows that > UDHR is enough and the Covenents will only complicate the matter, then > obviously... > Thanks for the clarifications. > > Mawaki > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Paul Lehto wrote: >> Referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the treaty >> called the International Covenent on Civil and Political Rights, On >> 8/25/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> I'm sure it doesn't hurt to reference both, the treaty for backing. >> >> ANSWER: It does hurt if it is worded in such a way as to leave open >> the inference that the ratification or acceptance by treaty is what >> makes human rights binding on all nations, because that gives each >> nation both a power of unilateral veto as well as an implied power of >> totalitarian authority over all people under its control. But yes, >> properly worded, the UDHR alone is enough and binding on all nations >> under customary international law, and the Covenant as well as other >> treaties are like adding suspenders on top of a strong belt. >>> >>> 2010/8/25 Paul Lehto : >>>> Per the below, the UDHR is most certainly binding international law, >>>> regardless of the existence of a signed treaty. I only point to >>>> signatures on treaties for the purpose of establishing yet another >>>> level: binding agreement and consent in light of my statement at the >>>> outset that no one wants to expressly and publicly distance themselves >>>> from these rights. >>>> >> [snip] >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-2334 >> > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Thu Aug 26 03:33:48 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:33:48 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Nomination In-Reply-To: <2E8CD59A029D48489DE278E8C1DFB6A9@ceo> References: <88EE689E835E4A0D8049D196F7D3F2D5@userPC> <2E8CD59A029D48489DE278E8C1DFB6A9@ceo> Message-ID: <3179352.20104.1282808028115.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k27> So do I Jean-Louis fullsack CSDPTT > Message du 23/08/10 10:49 > De : "AHM Bazlur Rahman" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Michael Gurstein" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] Nomination > > > I strongly support to Mike proposal regarding Parminder as one of the CS > presenters > > > > Bazlu > _______________________ > AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR > Chief Executive Officer > Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC) > [NGO in Special Consultative Status with the UN Economic and Social Council] > & > Head, Community Radio Academy > > House: 13/1, Road: 2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 > Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh > > Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 > Cell: 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 > E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net www.bnnrc.net > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Gurstein" > To: > Sent: Monday, August 23, 2010 12:47 PM > Subject: [governance] Nomination > > > > > > I'ld like to suggest Parminder as one of the CS presenters. > > > > Mike > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at Thu Aug 26 05:13:45 2010 From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at)) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:13:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The general wisdom is that the core rights of the UDHR has evolved into binding customary international law, but it would be good to refer to the UDHR as developed in subsequent UN human rights treaty law in order to give the full frame. Best regards Wolfgang Benedek Am 25.08.10 22:55 schrieb "Paul Lehto" unter : > Per the below, the UDHR is most certainly binding international law, > regardless of the existence of a signed treaty. I only point to > signatures on treaties for the purpose of establishing yet another > level: binding agreement and consent in light of my statement at the > outset that no one wants to expressly and publicly distance themselves > from these rights. > > comments interwoven: > On 8/25/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > wrote: >> I support fully to put the Human Rights Declaration into the Center. > > Present company excepted, it's difficult indeed for anyone not to > support it. Opposing it immediately exposes those who oppose it. It's > thus safe territory to take a position within, since anyone outside > it's territory by their own admission is an out-law. > >> However, the 1948 Declaration is not a legally binding treaty and it was not >> ratified by UN member states. It was adopted as a "Declaration" in the UN >> General Assembly. The legal binding document, tjr "treaty" - which needs >> ratification - is the "International Covenant on Polical and Civil Rights" >> from 1966. It is ratified by more than 160 UN member states. Just to be >> legally precise. > > This is a move toward greater accuracy, but misleading in where it > ends up (with the idea that the UDHR is "not ...legally binding.") > It is binding, and I've provided a quick quote from the chair of the > UDHR effort's site further below in support. > > Legal precision requires that we note that while the "declaration" was > not thought of by most as binding AT THE TIME, it has grown to become > so. See www.udhr.org (Eleanor Roosevelt foundation's site, and she > essentially chaired the UDHR effort). > > While the udhr.org site I just linked to is also technically "not law" > it summarizes concisely my understanding of the law (based on primary > sources in international law) of the status of the UDHR. As you > note, the International Covenent on Political and Civil Rights is > undoubtedly a treaty and so it makes this discussion somewhat moot, > except that the UDHR is far better known and a better document to > organize around, coming out of the experience and the ashes of WWII, > given that they are both enforceable in any international court of > justice, to be sure, and a core characteristic of a rogue state is one > not recognizing this in their domestic courts. Even treaty > cancellation by a nation-state would be ineffective to eliminate its > obligations regarding the UDHR rights because they are part of > customary international law (see below) which is binding without > necessity of a treat. > > -----start quote "Questions" page > http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm -------- > > What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? > The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the primary international > articulation of the fundamental and inalienable rights of all members > of the human family. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on > December 10, 1948, the UDHR represents the first comprehensive > agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all > human beings. > > [...] Originally intended as a "common standard of achievement for all > peoples and all nations", over the past fifty years the Universal > Declaration has become a cornerstone of customary international law, > and all governments are now bound to apply its principles. Because the > Universal Declaration of Human Rights successfully encompasses legal, > moral and philosophical beliefs held true by all peoples, it has > become a living document which asserts its own elevating force on the > events of our world. > > Are governments legally required to respect the principles outlined in the > UDHR? > Yes. While the record shows that most of those who adopted the UDHR > did not imagine it to be a legally binding document, the legal impact > of the Universal Declaration has been much greater than perhaps any of > its framers had imagined. > > Today, direct reference to the UDHR is made in the constitutions of > many nations that realized their independence after the document was > adopted. Prime ministers, presidents, legislators, judges, lawyers, > legal scholars, human rights activists and ordinary people throughout > the world have accepted the Universal Declaration as an essential > legal code. Dozens of legally binding international treaties are based > on the principles set forth in the UDHR, and the document has been > cited as justification for numerous United Nations actions, including > acts of the Security Council. > > As oppressed individuals turn increasingly to the Universal > Declaration for protection and relief, so governments have come to > accept the document not just as a noble aspiration, but as a standard > that must be realized. Because it is universal, a central and integral > part of our international legal structure, the Universal Declaration > is widely accepted as a primary building block of customary > international law -- an indispensable tool in upholding human rights > for all. > > -----end quote from udhr.org ----------------------------- > > "Customary international law", jus cogens, inalienable rights and > fundamental human rights are closely related terms in this context. > By "Customary international law" it means that the core provisions are > binding WITHOUT REGARD TO TREATY. Thus for example, prohibitions on > torture are binding quite without regard to treaty ratification since > they are most often intentional crimes under cover of law and > authority. National laws to the contrary are void. > > As I wrote before, there's no higher law than this. The UDHR > recognizes the pre-existence of "inalienable" rights -- rights that > can't be lost or forfeited and thus treaties are irrelevant except as > guiding articulations -- and the initial treatment of the UDHR as > "declaration" supports this and in fact makes the UDHR stronger by > showing that the inalienable rights do not come from governmental > action, but are ones we're endowed with by nature of our humanity, or > endowed with "by our Creator", or by natural law -- any source is just > fine as long as it's one that governments individually or collectively > can not tamper with and thus take away those inalienable rights. > > UDHR.org: Can the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human > Rights be enforced? ANSWER: Yes. [...] > http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm > > UDHR.org: Are all rights in the Universal Declaration regarded as > equally important? ANSWER: Yes [...though the two covenants cause some > confusion...] http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm > > Paul Lehto, J.D. > >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Mi 25.08.2010 21:11 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Paul Lehto' >> Betreff: RE: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers >> >> >> >> I like very much framing the overall presentation in the context of the >> UDHR. >> >> M >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:11 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque >> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm >> Subject: Re: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers >> >> >> Below is just a couple paragraphs that give a topic or title for an address >> that "frames" things in what I believe is both justified as well as >> mandatory (because of treaty acceptance as well as inalienable >> rights) for member states of the United Nations. Note that while I provide >> a conceptual introductory paragraph the entire content is left open. Not >> that this group couldn't suggest or require specific content if that were >> its wish, but that my focus is to suggest what I feel is both the proper and >> indeed mandatory general method of approach, given the structure of the >> United Nations and treaties such as the UNHDR. >> >> == >> >> TOPIC / TITLE FOR ADDRESS: The Global Internet: Keeping Our Word on >> (and Making Real) the Promises of the United Nations' Members >> >> INTRO: Is there any country prepared today to denounce the agreement of 192 >> member nations? This agreement ratified by 192 nations is the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights, the most successful treaty in world history in >> terms of acceptance. As always, the law is hardly needed except in areas >> where violations can occur, and human rights violations do occur. That does >> not indicate or prove it is time to give up on enforcing human rights, or >> else violations lead to the absurd result of abandoning all hope, which is >> the sign above the door in Dante's Hell. Quite the opposite, the rights >> agreed to by so many member nations are a light unto the world, a guide, and >> specifically a mandatory charter we are all called not only to publicize >> these "common standards for achievement" worldwide, but specifically "by >> PROGRESSIVE measures, national and international, TO SECURE their universal >> and effective recognition and observance." As we make Progress on the >> Internet, we're encouraged that it is easier to build things correctly the >> first time then it is to take a finished structure and re-design it. As the >> internet is continually built and rebuilt we have that advantage, and in any >> case applying the Charter and Human Rights universally and progressively not >> just to member states but to any peoples and instruments under their control >> is our highest opportunity and responsibility. >> >> My comments today reflect the status of internet governance in light of our >> charge and that which of course comes with any action of the United Nations: >> the all-important context of the mission and especially the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights accepted as our common standard and vision for >> the people of the world: >> >> [Individual issues addressed here in light of rights. Including, perhaps, >> whether a new article or document spelling out merely for purposes of making >> their application as crystal clear as possible, the requirements of already >> existing human rights as applied to the specific new context of the >> internet. In the main, the theme is "Making it real: Rights and the promise >> of the Internet." ] >> >> END on echo of INTRO above of common standards and commitment to rights, >> with reference to internal content of the speech above. == Paul Lehto, J.D. >> >> On 8/25/10, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you >>> discuss, support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread, >>> may we please have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing) >>> topics and main points to be made? >>> >>> We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal >>> consensus that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with >>> main points as defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree, >>> particularly if you are a nominated speaker, please post your views as >>> well. >>> >>> Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger >>> >>> >>> On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: >>>> >>>> Ginger, >>>> >>>> When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that >>>> made an impact, I usually just remember the substance. And on some I >>>> remember the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were >>>> speaking from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could >>>> not say in what capacity. I remember "I have a dream" but I do not >>>> even know in what capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made >>>> some I loved but as a student and I know this includes the great >>>> Ghandijji also but before Independence, so in what role I do not >>>> know. >>>> >>>> Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite. >>>> Whether the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and >>>> not the messenger. Let us hear what our best contributors have to >>>> say, let them strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further >>>> dialogue and deeper thought. Only the power of their words - or the >>>> absence of, will determine if they speak for the greater community. >>>> >>>> As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators >>>> will ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence. I participated >>>> in the vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them >>>> with an empowerment to do their best and they have honored that >>>> trust. >>>> >>>> Eric >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Ginger Paque >>>> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango ; >>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM >>>> Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and >>>> Paul's >>>> >>>> This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and >>>> important discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we >>>> should consider this carefully. >>>> >>>> The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely >>>> opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with >>>> a critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help >>>> the IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS. >>>> >>>> However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment, >>>> we must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not >>>> (imho) any longer be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so >>>> the presentations must necessarily be very carefully prepared. >>>> >>>> May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as >>>> suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in >>>> favor? >>>> >>>> Thanks to everyone, >>>> Best, Ginger >>>> >>>> On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, >>>>> >>>>> I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my >>>>> understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention >>>>> of friends here. >>>>> >>>>> However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF >>>>> open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely >>>>> allowed to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why >>>>> would it not be possible and useful for the IGF itself ? >>>>> >>>>> The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed - >>>>> legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among >>>>> prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and >>>>> the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection >>>>> of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus >>>>> another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and >>>>> possible alternative options to nurture the debate. >>>>> >>>>> Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and >>>>> elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to >>>>> have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we >>>>> have not conducted so far in a structured manner. >>>>> >>>>> In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to >>>>> reformulate the proposal as follows : >>>>> >>>>> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger >>>>> and >>>>> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and >>>>> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have >>>>> a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-) >>>>> >>>>> 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was >>>>> maybe a bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them >>>>> identify the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and >>>>> the potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to >>>>> Mawaki's idea of "talking points" >>>>> >>>>> As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline >>>>> and this would be very useful preparatory work for the next >>>>> milestones during the end of the year. >>>>> >>>>> Hope this helps. >>>>> >>>>> Best >>>>> >>>>> Bertrand >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls >>>>>> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules & >>>>>> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice) >>>>>> in the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember >>>>>> (and frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >>>>>> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that >>>>>> this is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try >>>>>> to reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community >>>>>> while emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there >>>>>> are any. I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a >>>>>> couple of talking points (for the most important issues on the >>>>>> agenda) but really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just my opinion. >>>>>> >>>>>> Mawaki >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the >>>>>>> message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into >>>>>>> account the issues >>>>>>> that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA >> and >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC >>>>>>> proposes a >>>>>>> name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to >>>>>>> draft >>>>>>> entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities >>>>>>> present in >>>>>>> the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of >>>>>>> democracy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree up until now, but... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the >>>>>>> list, as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >>>>>>> opportunities for people >>>>>>> to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as >>>>>>> you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening >>>>>>> and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated >>>>>>> as IGC statements and >>>>>>> have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated. >>>>>>> Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding >>>>>>> they will >>>>>>> not depart too radically from our general views. >>>>>>> Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as >>>>>>> your >>>>>>> post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for >>>>>>> her >>>>>>> views and also invite others to comment. >>>>>>> I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some >>>>>>> hours >>>>>>> ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ____________________ >>>>> 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") >>> >> >> >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > > > -- > Paul R Lehto, J.D. > P.O. Box 1 > Ishpeming, MI 49849 > lehto.paul at gmail.com > 906-204-2334 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Thu Aug 26 05:13:51 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:13:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <48FB1A98-CFEE-46FF-912A-4ABE3A6A0FAD@marzouki.info> Hello all, Not only this would complicate the matter and would indeed hurt, as Paul Lehto already said, but even most importantly, it would seriouslt hurt as a political position: the sole reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights would de facto exclude the other International Covenant, as important as the CCPR, namely the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). As a reminder, human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated (Vienna declaration, World Conference on Human Rights, 1993, see http://www2.ohchr.org/ english/law/vienna.htm for reference). Therefore, let's stick to the UDHR: after all, the IGF is (hardly) a political arena, not an international court. However, if one really wants to mention the Covenants, then let's refer to the International Bill of Human Rights (UDHR + CCPR + CESCR + additional protocols), but it's less known to the general public. Meryem Marzouki -- Meryem Marzouki - Paris, France Email: meryem at marzouki.info Lab. LIP6/CNRS/UPMC - www-polytic.lip6.fr IRIS (Imaginons un réseau Internet solidaire) - www.iris.sgdg.org EDRI (European Digital Rights) - www.edri.org Le 26 août 10 à 00:45, Mawaki Chango a écrit : > I'm sure our drafters will now pay careful attention to this matter. > > To my edification, I never knew the Covenents (especially in the post > cold war era and understanding) may be seen as weakening, or creating > a contradiction with, the UDHR. I've been part of policy development > processes where all those legal instruments were referenced in the > same resolution (with the push of other lawyers or law experts). But > as you know, lawyers are great interpreters. > > If your peers agree and maybe more importantly if practice shows that > UDHR is enough and the Covenents will only complicate the matter, then > obviously... > Thanks for the clarifications. > > Mawaki > > On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Paul Lehto > wrote: >> Referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the treaty >> called the International Covenent on Civil and Political Rights, On >> 8/25/10, Mawaki Chango wrote: >> >>> I'm sure it doesn't hurt to reference both, the treaty for backing. >> >> ANSWER: It does hurt if it is worded in such a way as to leave open >> the inference that the ratification or acceptance by treaty is what >> makes human rights binding on all nations, because that gives each >> nation both a power of unilateral veto as well as an implied power of >> totalitarian authority over all people under its control. But yes, >> properly worded, the UDHR alone is enough and binding on all nations >> under customary international law, and the Covenant as well as other >> treaties are like adding suspenders on top of a strong belt. >>> >>> 2010/8/25 Paul Lehto : >>>> Per the below, the UDHR is most certainly binding international >>>> law, >>>> regardless of the existence of a signed treaty. I only point to >>>> signatures on treaties for the purpose of establishing yet another >>>> level: binding agreement and consent in light of my statement >>>> at the >>>> outset that no one wants to expressly and publicly distance >>>> themselves >>>> from these rights. >>>> >> [snip] >> -- >> Paul R Lehto, J.D. >> P.O. Box 1 >> Ishpeming, MI 49849 >> lehto.paul at gmail.com >> 906-204-2334 >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 06:45:04 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 06:45:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: <48FB1A98-CFEE-46FF-912A-4ABE3A6A0FAD@marzouki.info> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FDC@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <48FB1A98-CFEE-46FF-912A-4ABE3A6A0FAD@marzouki.info> Message-ID: After acknowledging the most recent emails, I throw out an idea for supporting continuation of this work based on human rights frameworks, and then throw out a "sketch" of internet rights as a function of the right of everyone "to participate in cultural activities" given the specific broad ways those words are defined in UN human rights documents. But first, most recently Meryem Marsouki aptly points out the other covenant (on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) in addition to the Covenent on Civil and Political Rights, and gives the concise formula for the International Bill of Rights (UDHR + CCPR + CESCR + additional protocols). Also, Wolfgang Benedek concisely pointed to the UDHR as customary international law with the Covenants explicating the human rights framework further. The inter-relationship of various human rights documents and rights is sometimes a bit more nuanced than stated here but is fairly adequate for our purposes. The Covenants impose affirmative proactive obligations of promotion, including via international cooperation, in order to achieve the full panoply of human rights. This is not only requiring progressive recognition of rights, but also their monitoring, studying, and more effective recognition (which is something this group deals with). This strikes me as one solid basis for an appeal for the continuation as well as expansion of the kind of work and efforts we make. For example, paragraph 11 of the official comment on the Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, in addressing states facing resource problems in light of covenant language that requires states to do the best they can, states both that (a) there is a bare-minimum basement level below which no one may fall, and (b) "the obligations to monitor the extent of the realization, or more especially of the non-realization, of economic, social and cultural rights, and to devise strategies and programmes for their promotion, are not in any way eliminated as a result of resource constraints." Since this group's already up and running, to eliminate it would be regressive, and the comment says: "Moreover, any deliberately retrogressive measures in that regard would require the most careful consideration and would need to be fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the maximum available resources. See Para. 9&10, http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/%28symbol%29/CESCR+General+comment+3.En?OpenDocument I'm not necessarily suggesting that renewal and/or expansion of this work be expressly argued as a right, but rather that everyone and especially every state that did support the work is fulfilling its obligations (at least in part) under the International Bill fo Rights to "monitor the extent of the realization," and "devise strategies and programmes for their promotion" and that shortage of money is of course no excuse really at all (if our work involves rights). On the other hand, if our work for some reason didn't involve rights, then funding and such would be a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate. I have some specific things to think about like the Covenant right of everyone to participate in cultural activities. As pasted below the phrase "to participate" is a term of art with a very broad definition in UN documents that already sweeps technology within it, and "cultural" similarly includes technological development. The definitions of both are in my P.S. and P.P.S. below. I wonder if anyone thinks the definitions, especially since the examples are "inter alia" or "among others" and therefore not intended to limit the general class to those named, would somehow exclude the internet from within the meaning of 'culture' and 'participate.' Unless there is an "authority" somewhere that has definitively and finally ruled the internet totally not within the meaning of this covenant (which anticipates, and indeed requires "progressive realisation...") this would seem to be worth a bit more attention since the internet is part of global culture as one of its main descriptions. Paul Lehto, J.D. P.S. Definition of "culture" and "cultural" in official comment (paragraphs reversed) 13 The Committee considers that culture, for the purpose of implementing article 15 (1) (a), encompasses, inter alia, ways of life, language, oral and written literature, music and song, non-verbal communication, religion or belief systems, rites and ceremonies, sport and games, methods of production or technology, natural and man-made environments, food, [...] 12. The concept of culture must be seen not as a series of isolated manifestations or hermetic compartments, but as an interactive process whereby individuals and communities, while preserving their specificities and purposes, give expression to the culture of humanity. This concept takes account of the individuality and otherness of culture as the creation and product of society. P.P.S. “To participate” or “to take part” 14. The terms “to participate” and “to take part” have the same meaning and are used interchangeably in other international and regional instruments. 15. There are, among others, three interrelated main components of the right to participate or take part in cultural life: (a) participation in, (b) access to, and (c) contribution to cultural life. (a) Participation covers in particular the right of everyone — alone, or in association with others or as a community — to act freely, to choose his or her own identity, to identify or not with one or several communities or to change that choice, to take part in the political life of society, to engage in one’s own cultural practices and to express oneself in the language of one’s choice. Everyone also has the right to seek and develop cultural knowledge and expressions and to share them with others, as well as to act creatively and take part in creative activity; (b) Access covers in particular the right of everyone — alone, in association with others or as a community — to know and understand his or her own culture and that of others through education and information, and to receive quality education and training with due regard for cultural identity. Everyone has also the right to learn about forms of expression and dissemination through any technical medium of information or communication, to follow a way of life associated with the use of cultural goods and resources such as land, water, biodiversity, language or specific institutions, and to benefit from the cultural heritage and the creation of other individuals and communities; (c) Contribution to cultural life refers to the right of everyone to be involved in creating the spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional expressions of the community. This is supported by the right to take part in the development of the community to which a person belongs, and in the definition, elaboration and implementation of policies and decisions that have an impact on the exercise of a person’s cultural rights. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anriette at apc.org Thu Aug 26 07:13:20 2010 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:13:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and In-Reply-To: <4C755027.8030202@gmail.com> References: <4C755027.8030202@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1282821200.1917.1470.camel@anriette-laptop> Thanks for the updated list Ginger. Marilia.. please do accept your nomination! I certainly endorse it. Anriette On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 12:47 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Karen Banks is now confirmed: > > Updated list for discussion: > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) > Karen Banks (confirmed) > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > Marilia Maciel (considering accepting C. Afonso's nomination) > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I > > ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If > > your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like > > it to be included, please let me know by private email during those > > same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger > > > > Current list of nominees. > > > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > > Parminder (confirmed) > > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) > > Karen Banks (unconfirmed) > > Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) > > Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) > > > 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 > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 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 APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From carolinaaguerre at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 11:18:50 2010 From: carolinaaguerre at gmail.com (Carolina Aguerre) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:18:50 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and In-Reply-To: <1282821200.1917.1470.camel@anriette-laptop> References: <4C755027.8030202@gmail.com> <1282821200.1917.1470.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: I also endorse Marilia's nomination. Best. Carolina 2010/8/26 Anriette Esterhuysen > Thanks for the updated list Ginger. Marilia.. please do accept your > nomination! I certainly endorse it. > > Anriette > > On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 12:47 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > Karen Banks is now confirmed: > > > > Updated list for discussion: > > > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > > Parminder (confirmed) > > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) > > Karen Banks (confirmed) > > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > > Marilia Maciel (considering accepting C. Afonso's nomination) > > > > > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > > > IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I > > > ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If > > > your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like > > > it to be included, please let me know by private email during those > > > same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger > > > > > > Current list of nominees. > > > > > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > > > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > > > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > > > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > > > Parminder (confirmed) > > > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) > > > Karen Banks (unconfirmed) > > > Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) > > > Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) > > > > > 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 > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > 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 > > APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org > Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! > ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! > Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sylvia.caras at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 15:50:09 2010 From: sylvia.caras at gmail.com (Sylvia Caras) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 12:50:09 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet accessibility: blind users Message-ID: http://gizmodo.com/5620079/giz-explains-how-blind-people-see-the-internet ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ahmed.swapan at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 15:52:48 2010 From: ahmed.swapan at gmail.com (Ahmed Swapan Mahmud) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 02:52:48 +0700 Subject: [governance] 'Enact privacy act to protect personal information' Message-ID: FYI This is Daily Star's report on the Roundtable Consultation on 'Privacy Rights and Citizen's Concerns' held on 26 August 2010 in Dhaka, organized jointly by VOICE and Privacy International. Happy reading! More soon. Solidarity and regards, Ahmed/www.voicebd.org 'Enact privacy act to protect personal information' Staff Correspondent / http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=152437 Speakers at a roundtable discussion yesterday called upon the government to enact a privacy act to protect privacy, personal information, correspondence and means of communication of people. They pointed out that individual privacy is a constitutional right of every citizen and yet it is being violated at every step of everyone's life and no one can take legal actions against such violation. The discussion titled "Privacy rights and citizen's concerns" was organised by VOICE in association with Privacy International at the Cirdap auditorium in the city. "Article 43 of the constitution says every citizen shall have the right to privacy of his correspondence and other means of communication," said Ahmed Swapan Mahmud, executive director of VOICE, a rights-based organisation. Now there is no means to ensure this right to the citizens, he said. "We get phone calls from superstores, marketing firms, and other organisations who are not supposed to have our contact information," said Mahmud, "and yet they have our names, phone numbers and family information-- all without our consent." Journalist Selim Samad said phones are tapped in the name of security, emails are scrutinised and correspondences are monitored by security agencies. "We even had to give our fingerprints to the state for the national identity card. These are nothing but criminalising the society," he said. "Only convicted criminals in the US are required to give their fingerprints to the state," said journalist Shahidul Shuvra. "But here in Bangladesh, every citizen is required to give their fingerprints for the national identity card. This is blatant violation of individual privacy," he said. In return for providing the state with information, the citizens are not receiving any kind of benefits as well, the discussants said. "For example, if someone threatens you over telephones and you post a complaint to the law enforcers, they would not be able to take any action because they would not be able track the callers," he said. The real problem lies in the society's mindset where no one is aware of rights to individual privacy, said journalist Selim Samad. Our children are brought up in an environment where they are not given any privacy or individual freedom. So, they do not understand the value of privacy, said the discussants. They said information is an asset and it needs to be protected. In a country where the state is unable to protect its information from other countries, it is difficult to ensure protection of individual privacy and personal information, the discussants added. -- Ahmed Swapan Mahmud Executive Director, VOICE House 67, Block-Ka Pisciculture Housing Society Shyamoli, Dhaka 1207 Bangladesh Tel : +88-02-8158688 Cell-phone : +88-01711-881919 Alternate e-mail : exchange.voice at gmail.com Website : www.voicebd.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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 16:42:41 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:12:41 -0430 Subject: [governance] Short bio Valeria Betancourt Message-ID: <4C76D1C1.4060001@gmail.com> ---------- Activist in the field of ICTs for development and social justice. Her work with the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) has focused on ICT policies and internet rights in the context of development countries in Latin America. She has concentrated in facilitating engagement of civil society organizations in ICT policy processes. Her efforts are centered around regionalizing the IGF process by promoting a regional platform for policy dialogue among different stakeholders. Currently, Valeria is a member of the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group and has a seat as civil society observer in the eLAC coordination board. Valeria has a background in Sociology and Political Science and holds a Masters Degree in Cultural Studies and Communication. -- 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 17:22:33 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:22:33 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and In-Reply-To: References: <4C755027.8030202@gmail.com> <1282821200.1917.1470.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: Dear Anriette, Carolina, Tracy and Carlos, First of all, I would like to thank you for the nomination and for your trust. I accept the nomination with pleasure, but there is just a problem. Due to other commitments, I will have to leave Vilnius on Friday morning. I will be there for the opening session, but not for the closing ceremony. My impression is that most experienced speakers have been assigned for the opening session. If that is correct, I totally understand (and support) if Valeria Betancourt from Equador gets chosen to speak representing LAC. In any case, I am available and willing to assist the organization and intervention of Civil Society during the IGF in any way you find suitable. Best wishes, Marília On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Carolina Aguerre < carolinaaguerre at gmail.com> wrote: > I also endorse Marilia's nomination. > Best. > Carolina > > 2010/8/26 Anriette Esterhuysen > > Thanks for the updated list Ginger. Marilia.. please do accept your >> nomination! I certainly endorse it. >> >> Anriette >> >> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 12:47 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >> > >> > Karen Banks is now confirmed: >> > >> > Updated list for discussion: >> > >> > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) >> > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) >> > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) >> > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) >> > Parminder (confirmed) >> > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) >> > Karen Banks (confirmed) >> > Ben Akoh (confirmed) >> > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) >> > Marilia Maciel (considering accepting C. Afonso's nomination) >> > >> > >> > >> > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> > > >> > > IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I >> > > ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If >> > > your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like >> > > it to be included, please let me know by private email during those >> > > same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger >> > > >> > > Current list of nominees. >> > > >> > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) >> > > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) >> > > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) >> > > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) >> > > Parminder (confirmed) >> > > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) >> > > Karen Banks (unconfirmed) >> > > Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) >> > > Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) >> > > >> > 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 >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> 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 >> >> APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org >> Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! >> ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! >> Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade FGV Direito Rio Center for Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Thu Aug 26 18:21:32 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 18:21:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and In-Reply-To: References: <4C755027.8030202@gmail.com> <1282821200.1917.1470.camel@anriette-laptop> Message-ID: I supportt Marilia to represent the CS from LAC for the opening session. I also support the concept of Ginger and Jeremy representing the collective position of the IGC at either the Opening or Closing Sessions. On 8/26/10, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Dear Anriette, Carolina, Tracy and Carlos, > > First of all, I would like to thank you for the nomination and for your > trust. > I accept the nomination with pleasure, but there is just a problem. Due to > other commitments, I will have to leave Vilnius on Friday morning. I will be > there for the opening session, but not for the closing ceremony. > > My impression is that most experienced speakers have been assigned for the > opening session. If that is correct, I totally understand (and support) if > Valeria Betancourt from Equador gets chosen to speak representing LAC. > > In any case, I am available and willing to assist the organization and > intervention of Civil Society during the IGF in any way you find suitable. > > Best wishes, > > Marília > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Carolina Aguerre < > carolinaaguerre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I also endorse Marilia's nomination. >> Best. >> Carolina >> >> 2010/8/26 Anriette Esterhuysen >> >> Thanks for the updated list Ginger. Marilia.. please do accept your >>> nomination! I certainly endorse it. >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 12:47 -0430, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> > >>> > Karen Banks is now confirmed: >>> > >>> > Updated list for discussion: >>> > >>> > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) >>> > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) >>> > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) >>> > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) >>> > Parminder (confirmed) >>> > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) >>> > Karen Banks (confirmed) >>> > Ben Akoh (confirmed) >>> > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) >>> > Marilia Maciel (considering accepting C. Afonso's nomination) >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> > > >>> > > IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I >>> > > ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If >>> > > your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like >>> > > it to be included, please let me know by private email during those >>> > > same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger >>> > > >>> > > Current list of nominees. >>> > > >>> > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) >>> > > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) >>> > > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) >>> > > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) >>> > > Parminder (confirmed) >>> > > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) >>> > > Karen Banks (unconfirmed) >>> > > Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) >>> > > Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) >>> > > >>> > 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 >>> > >>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> -- >>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>> 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 >>> >>> APC 1990-2010 www.apc.org >>> Thank you for helping make APC what it is today! >>> ¡Gracias por hacer de APC lo que es hoy! >>> Merci d'avoir contribué à faire d'APC ce qu'elle est aujourd'hui! >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade > FGV Direito Rio > > Center for Technology and Society > Getulio Vargas Foundation > Rio de Janeiro - Brazil > -- Sent from my mobile device ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Aug 26 22:44:21 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 19:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers In-Reply-To: <4C754940.7050305@gmail.com> References: <78BAF34C-A807-4E02-8C36-EA6263E61CFB@ciroap.org> <4C740E9C.50503@gmail.com> <166832.36281.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <4C754940.7050305@gmail.com> Message-ID: <581874.73741.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Thank you Ginger for clarifying the threads. Perhaps it is in that clarity that we can understand more about the substance of a Speakers goals. I did not support the speakers because of who they are but for what they have proven they stand for. I believe that the thread as carried on by Wolgangs, Paul and others is settling nicely into the nuance of differing "proclamations" of self evident truths that we hold dear and stand for on this list. So in choosing a Speaker we are saying the most we collectively can say with clarity as to what our standards, expectations of others and goals are in fact. Are we to chose a mouthpiece and put the words in their mouth or are we to chose a visionary that carries our message in her very breath. In keeping more easily with the thread. I believe we are best served by taking important messages from any of the mentioned declaration/proclamation/manifestations of will and emphasizing them in our message. It is not a time to endorse or further one community or another but rather to exemplify the human commonality and equality. I believe that often sound bites are what listeners can get a hold of rather than long treatises or exhaustive explanations of importance. 1. Is it our duty to protect the great against the small? Or our place to give the smallest voice protection from the greatest force? 2. Should our role be to roll back accepted principals, for expedience and globalization, or to defend those principles from the steamroller of progress? 3. Are we today holding up the values of our society for the future or are we changing them for our futures? And statements of endurance: We must incorporate as paramount those principles upon which the UN is founded if we are to move forward with integrity. CS must stand for something or it will fall for anything. It is society's right to have informed leaders, it is Civil Society's duty to inform those leaders. Standing for Rights and Right should never be viewed as a difference. We must open the minds of the many so that the few can be heard Ignorance is the root of fear that only communication can keep from sprouting Let others champion the cause of Industry, let CS champion the cause of Society My two cents -- now back to my books. ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Ginger Paque ; Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 9:48:00 AM Subject: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you discuss, support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread, may we please have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing) topics and main points to be made? We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal consensus that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with main points as defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree, particularly if you are a nominated speaker, please post your views as well. Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: Ginger, > >When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that >made an impact, I usually just remember the substance. And on some I >remember the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were >speaking from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could >not say in what capacity. I remember "I have a dream" but I do not >even know in what capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made >some I loved but as a student and I know this includes the great >Ghandijji also but before Independence, so in what role I do not know. > >Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite. >Whether the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and >not the messenger. Let us hear what our best contributors have to >say, let them strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further >dialogue and deeper thought. Only the power of their words - or the >absence of, will determine if they speak for the greater community. > >As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators >will ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence. I participated >in the vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them >with an empowerment to do their best and they have honored that trust. > >Eric > > > > > > ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque >To: Bertrand de La Chapelle >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango ; Jeremy >Malcolm >Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM >Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill >and Paul's > >This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and >important discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think >we should consider this carefully. > >The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely >opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition >with a critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility >to help the IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS. > >However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this >moment, we must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, >will not (imho) any longer be speaking as individuals, but as the >IGC, and so the presentations must necessarily be very carefully >prepared. > >May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as >suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are >in favor? > >Thanks to everyone, >Best, Ginger > >On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all, >> >>I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my >>understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant >>attention of friends here. >> >>However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most >>IGF open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it >>precisely allowed to iron out potential differences and find >>consensus. Why would it not be possible and useful for the IGF >>itself ? >> >>The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed >>- legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among >>prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself >>and the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the >>selection of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one >>vision versus another but an opportunity to identify elements of >>consensus and possible alternative options to nurture the debate. >> >> >>Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and >>elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity >>to have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that >>we have not conducted so far in a structured manner. >> >> >>In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to >>reformulate the proposal as follows : >> >>1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger >>and Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin >>america and asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches >>(Jeremy does not have a reputation of being particularly tender >>with the IGF :-) >> >>2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was >>maybe a bit too much, a preparation on the list could help them >>identify the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations >>and the potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is >>close to Mawaki's idea of "talking points" >> >>As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline >>and this would be very useful preparatory work for the next >>milestones during the end of the year. >> >>Hope this helps. >> >>Best >> >>Bertrand >> >> >> >> >>On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango >> wrote: >> >>I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly >>calls >>>for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF >>>rules & >>>procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven >>>practice) in >>>the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember >>>(and >>>frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy). >>> >>>I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far >>>accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand >>>that this >>>is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try >>>to >>>reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community >>>while >>>emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there >>>are any. >>>I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a >>>couple of >>>talking points (for the most important issues on the agenda) >>>but >>>really not a collective elaboration of a full speech. >>> >>>Just my opinion. >>> >>>Mawaki >>> >>> >>>On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm >>> wrote: >>>> On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who >>>>speaks, the message is >>>> the most important and it has : a) to fully take into >>>>account the issues >>>> that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like >>>>the UN GA and the >>>> CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if >>>>the IGC proposes a >>>> name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the >>>>speaker to draft >>>> entirely on its own but should reflect the various >>>>sensitivities present in >>>> the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and >>>>practice) of >>>> democracy. >>>> >>>> I agree up until now, but... >>>> >>>> This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on >>>>the list, as has >>>> successfully been done in the past, with sufficient >>>>opportunities for people >>>> to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of >>>>viewpoints. >>>> >>>> This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have >>>>done as you >>>> describe with IGC statements many times, but not with >>>>opening and closing >>>> civil society statements, which have not been treated as >>>>IGC statements and >>>> have been left to the reasonable discretion of those >>>>nominated. >>>> Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the >>>>understanding they will >>>> not depart too radically from our general views. >>>> Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not >>>>think it is, as your >>>> post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult >>>>Ginger for her >>>> views and also invite others to comment. >>>> I would reply at more length, but just became a new >>>>father again some hours >>>> ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-) >>> > ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>____________________________________________________________ >>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>>For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >>-- >>____________________ >>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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Fri Aug 27 10:02:38 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (pouzin at well.com) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:02:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] One room in Vilnius Message-ID: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> Hello backpackers, We have booked several single rooms in the vicinity (300m) of the IGF meeting. One of the rooms is becoming redundant. We can cancel its reservation, or keep it for someone else attending IGF. The place: Hotel Tilto, Tilto Str. 8, Vilnius, LT-01108 Rate: Euros 55/day, buffet breakfast and VAT included. No other charge. Strictly non smoking. Present booking: 11 thru 18 Sep. We can change arrival and departure dates at no penalty until 5 Sep. Contact: Chantal Lebrument ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Fri Aug 27 16:30:37 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 21:30:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] One room in Vilnius In-Reply-To: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> Message-ID: <0h9zl+JtBCeMFAP8@perry.co.uk> In message <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610 at well.com>, at 07:02:38 on Fri, 27 Aug 2010, pouzin at well.com writes >We have booked several single rooms in the vicinity (300m) of the IGF meeting. I'm sure it's a lovely hotel, but is it really that close to the venue? http://goo.gl/maps/g6kr -- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Aug 28 11:55:54 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:55:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] FYI: ITU & ICANN References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/toure-to-beckstrom-16aug10-en.pdf 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Aug 28 13:03:50 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 20:03:50 +0300 Subject: [governance] FYI: ITU & ICANN In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: thanks for that Wolfgang, 2010/8/28 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > http://www.icann.org/correspondence/toure-to-beckstrom-16aug10-en.pdf not much in the way of "enhanced cooperation" in that letter is there? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Aug 28 15:29:33 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 15:29:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] FYI: ITU & ICANN In-Reply-To: References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ITU is an intergovernmental organization, and ICANN is neither governmental nor inter-governmental. They might as well ask for a seat on the UN Security Council. We all know that the ITU and many of its key member states (China, the Arab states, Russia, etc.) support a purely intergovernmental model for Internet governance. Why should we be "shocked, shocked" at this? However, if the U.S. govt succeeds in its current efforts to make GAC the veto authority over all ICANN policies, then perhaps it should qualify as an intergovernmental org sometime in the near future. ;-) --MM > -----Original Message----- > > not much in the way of "enhanced cooperation" in that letter is there? > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sat Aug 28 18:16:33 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:46:33 -0430 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Message-ID: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Sat Aug 28 19:06:29 2010 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:06:29 +0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear all: I would like to nominate the following, provided that they will accept the IGC guidelines: Fouad Bajwa Fatimata Seye Sylla Wolfgang Kleinwachter Marilia Maciel Wishing you all the best and looking forward to see you in Vilnius. Qusai Al-Shatti On Sunday, August 29, 2010, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > > > > We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the > difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I > suggest we try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names > to the IGF Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their > statements according to the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. > > --I suggest that people express their support for preferred > speakers, so that we can narrow the list in an informal process if > preferences are clear. > > Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should > accept IGC guidelines for their statements, I also ask that > nominated speakers who disagree with this concept express this > clearly on the list as soon as possible, for the sake of > transparency. > > At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to > discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If > you disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as > possible. I understand that silence does not necessarily mean > agreement, but if alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no > way of taking them under consideration. Please opine in a timely > manner. > > Gracias! Merci and Thanks, > Best, Ginger > > Updated list for discussion: > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla > (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) > Karen Banks (confirmed) > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been > open for one week. I ask than any final nominations be made > within the next 24 hours. If your nomination must be delayed > longer than that, but you would like it to be included, please > let me know by private email during those same 24 hours. Thanks! > Best, ginger > > Current list of nominees. > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye > Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) > Karen Banks (unconfirmed) > Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Sat Aug 28 20:49:40 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (katitza at eff.org) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:49:40 +0000 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1902165000-1283043118-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1091743299-@bda483.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Dear all, I would thanks APC for the nomination but I would prefer to decline. I'm already very much involved in the program. I would like to give my support to the following four persons: Marilia and valeria Wolfgang and Ben My best regards, P.S I do apologize for the short message but I'm only able to read messages through my phone. I'm on vacations until september 7. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:46:33 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I suggest we try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names to the IGF Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their statements according to the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, so that we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences are clear. Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept IGC guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated speakers who disagree with this concept express this clearly on the list as soon as possible, for the sake of transparency. At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I understand that silence does not necessarily mean agreement, but if alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no way of taking them under consideration. Please opine in a timely manner. Gracias! Merci and Thanks, Best, Ginger Updated list for discussion: Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) Parminder (confirmed) Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) Karen Banks (confirmed) Ben Akoh (confirmed) Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like it to be included, please let me know by private email during those same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger Current list of nominees. Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) Parminder (confirmed) Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) Karen Banks (unconfirmed) Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at eff.org Sat Aug 28 20:59:52 2010 From: katitza at eff.org (katitza at eff.org) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:59:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <1902165000-1283043118-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1091743299-@bda483.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com><1902165000-1283043118-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1091743299-@bda483.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <971326642-1283043594-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-503759789-@bda483.bisx.prod.on.blackberry> I believe we can support people who has not given an opening or a closing remarks in the past! Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: katitza at eff.org Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 00:49:40 To: ; Ginger Paque Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,katitza at eff.org Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing Dear all, I would thanks APC for the nomination but I would prefer to decline. I'm already very much involved in the program. I would like to give my support to the following four persons: Marilia and valeria Wolfgang and Ben My best regards, P.S I do apologize for the short message but I'm only able to read messages through my phone. I'm on vacations until september 7. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Ginger Paque Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 17:46:33 To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I suggest we try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names to the IGF Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their statements according to the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, so that we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences are clear. Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept IGC guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated speakers who disagree with this concept express this clearly on the list as soon as possible, for the sake of transparency. At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I understand that silence does not necessarily mean agreement, but if alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no way of taking them under consideration. Please opine in a timely manner. Gracias! Merci and Thanks, Best, Ginger Updated list for discussion: Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) Parminder (confirmed) Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) Karen Banks (confirmed) Ben Akoh (confirmed) Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like it to be included, please let me know by private email during those same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger Current list of nominees. Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) Parminder (confirmed) Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) Karen Banks (unconfirmed) Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at nic.br Sat Aug 28 21:08:35 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser) Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 22:08:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C79B313.1070104@nic.br> Will there be a specific voting process? Hartmut ========================= On 28/08/10 19:16, Ginger Paque wrote: > We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the > difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I > suggest we try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names to > the IGF Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their statements > according to the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. > > --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, > so that we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences > are clear. > > Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept > IGC guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated > speakers who disagree with this concept express this clearly on the > list as soon as possible, for the sake of transparency. > > At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to > discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you > disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I > understand that silence does not necessarily mean agreement, but if > alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no way of taking them > under consideration. Please opine in a timely manner. > > Gracias! Merci and Thanks, > Best, Ginger > > Updated list for discussion: > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) > Karen Banks (confirmed) > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I >> ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If >> your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like >> it to be included, please let me know by private email during those >> same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger >> >> Current list of nominees. >> >> Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) >> Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) >> Parminder (confirmed) >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) >> Karen Banks (unconfirmed) >> Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) >> Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) >> -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Aug 29 04:10:33 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:10:33 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF6@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks Ginger your approach has my full support. I certainly would accept IGC guidelines if I am selected as a candidate for the opening or closing session. BTW, we did this will nearly all interventions during WSIS I & II. Best wishes w ________________________________ Von: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Gesendet: So 29.08.2010 00:16 An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Betreff: Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I suggest we try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names to the IGF Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their statements according to the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, so that we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences are clear. Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept IGC guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated speakers who disagree with this concept express this clearly on the list as soon as possible, for the sake of transparency. At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I understand that silence does not necessarily mean agreement, but if alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no way of taking them under consideration. Please opine in a timely manner. Gracias! Merci and Thanks, Best, Ginger Updated list for discussion: Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) Parminder (confirmed) Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) Karen Banks (confirmed) Ben Akoh (confirmed) Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like it to be included, please let me know by private email during those same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger Current list of nominees. Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) Parminder (confirmed) Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) Karen Banks (unconfirmed) Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn Sun Aug 29 04:15:27 2010 From: tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn (Tijani BEN JEMAA) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:15:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ginger, If I have to choose 2 speakers, I will vote for: * Fatimata Seye Sylla * Parminder If I have to give 4 names, here is my choice (in preference order): * Fatimata Seye Sylla * Parminder * Ben Akoh * Valeria Betancourt ------------------------------------------------------------ Tijani BEN JEMAA Vice Chairman of CIC World Federation of Engineering Organizations Phone : + 216 70 825 231 Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 Fax : + 216 70 825 231 ------------------------------------------------------------ _____ De : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Envoyé : samedi 28 août 2010 23:17 À : 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' Objet : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I suggest we try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names to the IGF Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their statements according to the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, so that we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences are clear. Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept IGC guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated speakers who disagree with this concept express this clearly on the list as soon as possible, for the sake of transparency. At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I understand that silence does not necessarily mean agreement, but if alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no way of taking them under consideration. Please opine in a timely manner. Gracias! Merci and Thanks, Best, Ginger Updated list for discussion: Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) Parminder (confirmed) Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) Karen Banks (confirmed) Ben Akoh (confirmed) Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like it to be included, please let me know by private email during those same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger Current list of nominees. Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) Parminder (confirmed) Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) Karen Banks (unconfirmed) Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From azrak_khan at hotmail.com Sun Aug 29 04:53:38 2010 From: azrak_khan at hotmail.com (Arzak) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:53:38 +0500 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: I would suggest setting up an online poll for selection of speakers. I believe it will be more transparent if it's done in that manner. Regards, Arzak Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2010, at 1:15 PM, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" wrote: > Ginger, > > > > If I have to choose 2 speakers, I will vote for: > > Fatimata Seye Sylla > Parminder > > > If I have to give 4 names, here is my choice (in preference order): > > Fatimata Seye Sylla > Parminder > Ben Akoh > Valeria Betancourt > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Vice Chairman of CIC > > World Federation of Engineering Organizations > > Phone : + 216 70 825 231 > > Mobile : + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax : + 216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > De : Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Envoyé : samedi 28 août 2010 23:17 > À : 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > Objet : Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and > closing > > > > We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the > difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I > suggest we try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names > to the IGF Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their > statements according to the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. > > --I suggest that people express their support for preferred > speakers, so that we can narrow the list in an informal process if > preferences are clear. > > Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should > accept IGC guidelines for their statements, I also ask that > nominated speakers who disagree with this concept express this > clearly on the list as soon as possible, for the sake of transparency. > > At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to > discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If > you disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as > possible. I understand that silence does not necessarily mean > agreement, but if alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no > way of taking them under consideration. Please opine in a timely > manner. > > Gracias! Merci and Thanks, > Best, Ginger > > Updated list for discussion: > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) > Karen Banks (confirmed) > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I > ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If > your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like > it to be included, please let me know by private email during those > same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger > > Current list of nominees. > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) > Karen Banks (unconfirmed) > Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Aug 29 09:44:26 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian M) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 19:14:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello It is necessary to have a poll to elect a coordinator or to decide on a nomination for a MAG position, it is ok to have a poll for a major statement, but it is unnecessary for this list to go through an election process on a simple decision such as speakers for the opening and closing sessions of the IGF. One slot could go to an IGC coordinator, present or past. Another slot could be decided by all coordinators together with all moderators in an informal decision, perhaps in concurrence with the nominees themselves. Sivasubramanian M On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Arzak wrote: > I would suggest setting up an online poll for selection of speakers. I > believe it will be more transparent if it's done in that manner. > > Regards, > > Arzak > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 29, 2010, at 1:15 PM, "Tijani BEN JEMAA" > wrote: > > Ginger, > > > > If I have to choose 2 speakers, I will vote for: > > - Fatimata Seye Sylla > - Parminder > > > > If I have to give 4 names, here is my choice (in preference order): > > - Fatimata Seye Sylla > - Parminder > - Ben Akoh > - Valeria Betancourt > > > > *------------------------------------------------------------* > > *Tijani BEN JEMAA* > > Vice Chairman of *CIC* > > *W*orld* F*ederation of *E*ngineering *O*rganizations > > *Phone :* + 216 70 825 231 > > *Mobile :* + 216 98 330 114 > > *Fax :* + 216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------ > > *De :* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Envoyé :* samedi 28 août 2010 23:17 > *À :* 'governance at lists.cpsr.org' > *Objet :* Re: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and > closing > > > > We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the difficult > process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I suggest we try to do > this as soon as possible, so we can give names to the IGF Secretariat, and > so that speakers may prepare their statements according to the consensus > guidelines reached by the IGC. > > --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, so > that we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences are clear. > > Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept IGC > guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated speakers who > disagree with this concept express this clearly on the list as soon as > possible, for the sake of transparency. > > At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to discussion > if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you disagree with > this proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I understand that > silence does not necessarily mean agreement, but if alternate opinions are > not expressed, we have no way of taking them under consideration. Please > opine in a timely manner. > > Gracias! Merci and Thanks, > Best, Ginger > > Updated list for discussion: > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) > Karen Banks (confirmed) > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > > IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I ask than > any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If your nomination > must be delayed longer than that, but you would like it to be included, > please let me know by private email during those same 24 hours. Thanks! > Best, ginger > > Current list of nominees. > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) > Karen Banks (unconfirmed) > Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sun Aug 29 16:59:13 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:59:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Kill switch bill to be trojan-horsed in? Message-ID: <7E6DEF69B4074814850269D294366F3B@userPC> Is this common knowledge? I haven't seen it reported elsewhere.... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0828/congress-internet-kill-switch-defense-b ill M ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 29 21:17:51 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 21:17:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] FYI: ITU & ICANN In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06FF5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> ,<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D7073992236B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACF4F@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Of course there's a simple interim solution, although it may ICANNites gag - pay the ITU their fees and ICANN can apply to join ITU like any other sector member. Prior to the next Plenipot. I think ICANN can afford the fees, even if they're prohibitive for most civil society organizations. And everyone would be happy - the ITU would finally have taken over the Internet, well at least ICANN, figuratively speaking - and Beckstrom can hang at ITU meetings. Right? : ) Lee ________________________________________ From: Milton L Mueller [mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2010 3:29 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] FYI: ITU & ICANN ITU is an intergovernmental organization, and ICANN is neither governmental nor inter-governmental. They might as well ask for a seat on the UN Security Council. We all know that the ITU and many of its key member states (China, the Arab states, Russia, etc.) support a purely intergovernmental model for Internet governance. Why should we be "shocked, shocked" at this? However, if the U.S. govt succeeds in its current efforts to make GAC the veto authority over all ICANN policies, then perhaps it should qualify as an intergovernmental org sometime in the near future. ;-) --MM > -----Original Message----- > > not much in the way of "enhanced cooperation" in that letter is there? > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Aug 29 22:06:52 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 22:06:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Kill switch bill to be trojan-horsed in? In-Reply-To: <7E6DEF69B4074814850269D294366F3B@userPC> References: <7E6DEF69B4074814850269D294366F3B@userPC> Message-ID: The text of the bill is proposed to be a law amending the Homeland Security Act entitled "‘Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010.’’ Sources say they plan to have it inserted into a defense authorization bill. It defines the supervision of a new agency to include not only "continuous situational awareness" of the "federal information infrastructure" including but not limited to the national security apparatus, but also awareness, data, and intervention authority to "isolate" remediate, terminate (for a time) or take other action regarding the class of "national information" infrastructure, in addition to "Federal information infrastructure." In turn, the 'national information' infrastructure is defined as consisting of everything "(A)(i) that is owned, operated, or controlled within or from the United States; or (ii) if located outside the United States, the disruption of which could result in national or regional catastrophic damage in the United States; and (B) that is not owned, operated, controlled, or licensed for use by a Federal agency. So once again the USA takes a broad extraterritorial view on what it can intervene in, and includes "prevention" among the possible motives for action involving things outside US borders on the grounds that they might impact US interests. Preemptive action or preemptive cyberwar, if you will. The Director of Cyberspace Policy is to be notified not just of national security threats, but any event concerning "the national information infrastructure that could compromise or significantly affect *economic* or national security" clearly indicating that the scope here is broad, and not at all limited to national security projects, nor limited to US controlled assets or US citizens. On 8/29/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Is this common knowledge? I haven't seen it reported elsewhere.... > > http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0828/congress-internet-kill-switch-defense-b > ill > > M > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sun Aug 29 23:06:57 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 23:06:57 -0400 Subject: [governance] Internet Kill switch bill to be trojan-horsed in? In-Reply-To: References: <7E6DEF69B4074814850269D294366F3B@userPC>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE01956ACF53@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Frankly I wasn't taking this bill seriously, as the Senate bill had no companion bill being pushed through the House. But the mechanism of stuffing the cybersecurity bill into a defense authorization bill could be a workaround and short-circuit debate; and force it through the House in a reconciliation act - as usual someone is being clever. In an election year it could be trivially easy to paint any 'no' votes as equal to supporting identity thieves and state-sponsored (cyber-)terrorism. So yeah now CS groups should be concerned/and US groups should try to knock the worst excesses out...which won't be easy. ________________________________________ From: Paul Lehto [lehto.paul at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2010 10:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Michael Gurstein Subject: Re: [governance] Internet Kill switch bill to be trojan-horsed in? The text of the bill is proposed to be a law amending the Homeland Security Act entitled "‘Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act of 2010.’’ Sources say they plan to have it inserted into a defense authorization bill. It defines the supervision of a new agency to include not only "continuous situational awareness" of the "federal information infrastructure" including but not limited to the national security apparatus, but also awareness, data, and intervention authority to "isolate" remediate, terminate (for a time) or take other action regarding the class of "national information" infrastructure, in addition to "Federal information infrastructure." In turn, the 'national information' infrastructure is defined as consisting of everything "(A)(i) that is owned, operated, or controlled within or from the United States; or (ii) if located outside the United States, the disruption of which could result in national or regional catastrophic damage in the United States; and (B) that is not owned, operated, controlled, or licensed for use by a Federal agency. So once again the USA takes a broad extraterritorial view on what it can intervene in, and includes "prevention" among the possible motives for action involving things outside US borders on the grounds that they might impact US interests. Preemptive action or preemptive cyberwar, if you will. The Director of Cyberspace Policy is to be notified not just of national security threats, but any event concerning "the national information infrastructure that could compromise or significantly affect *economic* or national security" clearly indicating that the scope here is broad, and not at all limited to national security projects, nor limited to US controlled assets or US citizens. On 8/29/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > Is this common knowledge? I haven't seen it reported elsewhere.... > > http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0828/congress-internet-kill-switch-defense-b > ill > > M > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box 1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Mon Aug 30 03:51:46 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:51:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Internet Kill switch bill to be trojan-horsed In-Reply-To: References: <7E6DEF69B4074814850269D294366F3B@userPC> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20100830093106.051b9388@jefsey.com> This kind of bill, which actually progressively builds a national cybersecurity force seems in normal (if not delayed) line with the regalian duty of protection/defense of its country. It is to expect that most of the Govs, if not all, will progressively carry their duty in this area, more or less under the leading powers e-umbrellas (e-colonization). What is of interest here is the inclusion of the economic protection aspects. However, the real today world war is played in the standardization field by "internationalization" of national technicocomercial cultures. In that sense the Tunis agreement and the recent response the IAB gave to my appeal, would mean together a significant and surprising disengagement of the USA from the control of the Internet of the future. Therefore, I feel that we will have a result a military/industrial reposed in coming months/years, may be through a new ISOC kind of influence and an ARPA project to replace IETF as a technical influence leader. This Agency could be a good way to start influencing the technology to become more secure, architecturally and operationally. As usual innovation is incremental, disruptive or architectural. One could say now that IETF's is incremental, US Gov's is disruptive being a leader in the area, and users' is architectural. CS should consider the impact on society and cultures (none of them being small) of these three attitudes. jfc At 04:06 30/08/2010, Paul Lehto wrote: >The text of the bill is proposed to be a law amending the Homeland >Security Act entitled "'Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act >of 2010.'' > >Sources say they plan to have it inserted into a defense authorization >bill. It defines the supervision of a new agency to include not only >"continuous situational awareness" of the "federal information >infrastructure" including but not limited to the national security >apparatus, but also awareness, data, and intervention authority to >"isolate" remediate, terminate (for a time) or take other action >regarding the class of "national information" infrastructure, in >addition to "Federal information infrastructure." > >In turn, the 'national information' infrastructure is defined as >consisting of everything "(A)(i) that is owned, operated, or >controlled within or from the United States; or (ii) if located >outside the United States, the disruption of which could result in >national or regional catastrophic damage in the United States; and (B) >that is not owned, operated, controlled, or licensed for use by a >Federal agency. > >So once again the USA takes a broad extraterritorial view on what it >can intervene in, and includes "prevention" among the possible motives >for action involving things outside US borders on the grounds that >they might impact US interests. Preemptive action or preemptive >cyberwar, if you will. The Director of Cyberspace Policy is to be >notified not just of national security threats, but any event >concerning "the national information infrastructure that could >compromise or significantly affect *economic* or national security" >clearly indicating that the scope here is broad, and not at all >limited to national security projects, nor limited to US controlled >assets or US citizens. > > > >On 8/29/10, Michael Gurstein wrote: > > > > Is this common knowledge? I haven't seen it reported elsewhere.... > > > > > http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0828/congress-internet-kill-switch-defense-b > > ill > > > > M > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >-- >Paul R Lehto, J.D. >P.O. Box 1 >Ishpeming, MI 49849 >lehto.paul at gmail.com >906-204-2334 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Mon Aug 30 07:32:48 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 04:32:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201008301132.o7UBWmhV001520@well.com> My preferences are: Fatimata Seye Sylla and, Parminder By default, one man, one woman. Best ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pbekono at gmail.com Mon Aug 30 13:57:51 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 18:57:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <201008301132.o7UBWmhV001520@well.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> <201008301132.o7UBWmhV001520@well.com> Message-ID: Dear All, I would like to nominate - Wolfgang Kleinwachter - Fouad Bajwa - Fatimata Seye Sylla - Marilia Maciel Best, ~Pascal 2010/8/30, Louis Pouzin : > My preferences are: > Fatimata Seye Sylla > and, Parminder > > By default, one man, one woman. > > Best > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From graciela at nupef.org.br Mon Aug 30 16:39:49 2010 From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:39:49 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C7C1715.6090105@nupef.org.br> Hi, I express my support for Valeria Betancourt, Marilia Maciel, Parminder and Karen Banks. best Graciela Ginger Paque escreveu: > We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the > difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I > suggest we try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names to > the IGF Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their statements > according to the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. > > --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, > so that we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences > are clear. > > Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept > IGC guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated > speakers who disagree with this concept express this clearly on the > list as soon as possible, for the sake of transparency. > > At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to > discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you > disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I > understand that silence does not necessarily mean agreement, but if > alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no way of taking them > under consideration. Please opine in a timely manner. > > Gracias! Merci and Thanks, > Best, Ginger > > Updated list for discussion: > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) > Karen Banks (confirmed) > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I >> ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If >> your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like >> it to be included, please let me know by private email during those >> same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger >> >> Current list of nominees. >> >> Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) >> Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) >> Parminder (confirmed) >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) >> Karen Banks (unconfirmed) >> Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) >> Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From glaser at nic.br Mon Aug 30 16:54:22 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Richard Glaser) Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 17:54:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C7C1A7E.2090001@nic.br> My selected candidates: Valeria Betancourt Wolfgang Kleinwachter Parminder Marilia Maciel rgds Hartmut ================================== On 28/8/2010 19:16, Ginger Paque wrote: > We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the > difficult process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I > suggest we try to do this as soon as possible, so we can give names to > the IGF Secretariat, and so that speakers may prepare their statements > according to the consensus guidelines reached by the IGC. > > --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, > so that we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences > are clear. > > Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept > IGC guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated > speakers who disagree with this concept express this clearly on the > list as soon as possible, for the sake of transparency. > > At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to > discussion if anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you > disagree with this proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I > understand that silence does not necessarily mean agreement, but if > alternate opinions are not expressed, we have no way of taking them > under consideration. Please opine in a timely manner. > > Gracias! Merci and Thanks, > Best, Ginger > > Updated list for discussion: > > Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) > Karen Banks (confirmed) > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > Marilia Maciel (confirmed for opening) > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I >> ask than any final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If >> your nomination must be delayed longer than that, but you would like >> it to be included, please let me know by private email during those >> same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger >> >> Current list of nominees. >> >> Fouad Bajwa (confirmed) >> Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) >> Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) >> Parminder (confirmed) >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) >> Karen Banks (unconfirmed) >> Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) >> Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) >> -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pouzin at well.com Tue Aug 31 03:24:42 2010 From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well)) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:24:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] One room in Vilnius In-Reply-To: <0h9zl+JtBCeMFAP8@perry.co.uk> References: <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610@well.com> <0h9zl+JtBCeMFAP8@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: Thanks for pointing out the confusion. When we booked rooms in June we checked with Litexpo postal address, which is indeed a few hundred meters from the hotel. But this is not where Litexpo is located. Beware sneaky web info. - - - On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Roland Perry < roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote: > In message <201008271402.o7RE2c13004610 at well.com>, at 07:02:38 on Fri, 27 > Aug 2010, pouzin at well.com writes > > We have booked several single rooms in the vicinity (300m) of the IGF >> meeting. >> > > I'm sure it's a lovely hotel, but is it really that close to the venue? > > http://goo.gl/maps/g6kr > -- > Roland Perry > > -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Aug 31 04:56:46 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:56:46 +0700 Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4C7CC3CE.1020104@gmx.net> My selection: > Fatimata Seye Sylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) Norbert Klein -- 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 of the Mirror: To Trust the Law Means to Trust the Law is Implemented Sunday, 29.8.2010 http://tinyurl.com/2e6uyq7 (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new from time to time - at least every weekend: The NEW ADDRESS of The Mirror: http://www.cambodiamirror.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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Aug 31 12:52:02 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 09:52:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] CS speaker suggestions for the opening and closing In-Reply-To: <4C7C1715.6090105@nupef.org.br> References: <4C798AC1.70107@gmail.com> <4C7C1715.6090105@nupef.org.br> Message-ID: <378677.66713.qm@web55203.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Hi All My preference is for the following although it is difficult to chose . I am satisfied with the selection process that we have adopted . Parminder (confirmed) Karen Banks (confirmed) Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) Ginger Paque/Jeremy ( Cordinators) Regards Shaila Rao Mistry ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ginger Paque escreveu: > We have a final list of nominated speakers (below), and face the difficult >process of choosing 4 of our excellent possibilities. I suggest we try to do >this as soon as possible, so we can give names to the IGF Secretariat, and so >that speakers may prepare their statements according to the consensus guidelines >reached by the IGC. > > --I suggest that people express their support for preferred speakers, so that >we can narrow the list in an informal process if preferences are clear. > > Since the consensus seems to be clear that the speakers should accept IGC >guidelines for their statements, I also ask that nominated speakers who disagree >with this concept express this clearly on the list as soon as possible, for the >sake of transparency. > > At this point these is a proposal for a way forward and open to discussion if >anyone wants to suggest an alternative procedure. If you disagree with this >proposal, please let us know as soon as possible. I understand that silence does >not necessarily mean agreement, but if alternate opinions are not expressed, we >have no way of taking them under consideration. Please opine in a timely manner. > > Gracias! Merci and Thanks, > Best, Ginger > > Updated list for discussion: > > FouadBajwa (confirmed) > FatimataSeyeSylla (confirmed) > Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) > Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) > Parminder (confirmed) > Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) > Karen Banks (confirmed) > Ben Akoh (confirmed) > Katitza Rodriguez (confirmed) > MariliaMaciel (confirmed for opening) > > > > On 8/25/2010 11:36 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> IGC nominations for CS speakers have now been open for one week. I ask than any >>final nominations be made within the next 24 hours. If your nomination must be >>delayed longer than that, but you would like it to be included, please let me >>know by private email during those same 24 hours. Thanks! Best, ginger >> >> Current list of nominees. >> >> FouadBajwa (confirmed) >> FatimataSeyeSylla (confirmed) >> Valeria Betancourt (confirmed) >> Wolfgang Kleinwachter (confirmed) >> Parminder (confirmed) >> Co-coordinators (Jeremy/Ginger) (in discussion) >> Karen Banks (unconfirmed) >> Ben Akoh (unconfirmed) >> Katitza Rodriguez (unconfirmed) >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- 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 Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t