From pouzin at well.com  Wed Dec  1 05:47:14 2010
From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well))
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:47:14 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>

In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly legitimate
cyrillic cctld.

ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their illegitimate
"power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already totally confusing by
their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3 from 8, they should get
better glasses or font sets.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101201/c22ca480/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  1 08:02:51 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:02:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
 <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=zkZPbWQT5KCVfZNvsMTc+mmjrEb+rB-r_VN=C@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly legitimate
> cyrillic cctld.
>
> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their illegitimate
> "power".


ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS
Stability Panel for that, no?

More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already totally confusing by
> their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3 from 8, they should get
> better glasses or font sets.

It seems I will need new glasses soon!
-- 
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 avri at acm.org  Wed Dec  1 08:15:25 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:15:25 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=zkZPbWQT5KCVfZNvsMTc+mmjrEb+rB-r_VN=C@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=zkZPbWQT5KCVfZNvsMTc+mmjrEb+rB-r_VN=C@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org>


On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote:

> 
> 
> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS
> Stability Panel for that, no?


And how is that not ICANN making the decision?

Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard.

But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these outsourced entities.  But by ICANN process every decisions is eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies something it shouldn't.

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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Dec  1 08:32:24 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 16:32:24 +0300
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
 <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=zkZPbWQT5KCVfZNvsMTc+mmjrEb+rB-r_VN=C@mail.gmail.com> <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimC0SPGRUZ8jk-oAfwAVam3E3ehM4PsUmK68KcR@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS
>> Stability Panel for that, no?
>
>
> And how is that not ICANN making the decision?

I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the decision.

>
> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard.
>
> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these outsourced entities.  But by ICANN process every decisions is eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies something it shouldn't.


It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board
reverse the DNS Stability Panel.

I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong.

-- 
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 daniel at digsys.bg  Wed Dec  1 08:47:40 2010
From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:47:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimC0SPGRUZ8jk-oAfwAVam3E3ehM4PsUmK68KcR@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=zkZPbWQT5KCVfZNvsMTc+mmjrEb+rB-r_VN=C@mail.gmail.com> <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> <AANLkTimC0SPGRUZ8jk-oAfwAVam3E3ehM4PsUmK68KcR@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg>

On 01.12.10 15:32, McTim wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria<avri at acm.org>  wrote:
>> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote:
>>
>>
>> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS
>> Stability Panel for that, no?
>>
>> And how is that not ICANN making the decision?
> I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the decision.
>

The process is such, that ICANN staff has made decision that they will 
not continue the Bulgarian application evaluation, because their 
subcontractor, the DNS Stability Panel (who are pretty much anonymous, 
by the way -- very much unacceptable for such task) has indicated there 
MAY be confusion.

>> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard.
>>
>> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these outsourced entities.  But by ICANN process every decisions is eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies something it shouldn't.
> It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board
> reverse the DNS Stability Panel.
>
> I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong.
>
This issue ceased to be technical, at the moment when the ICANN staff 
has decided to act this way. The issue with the Bulgarian application is 
already pretty much political and is getting more and more attention, 
because the approach is simply wrong (this merits separate discussion, 
in fact, related to the Internet Governance issues).

Even more absurd is that, the ICANN board has never ever made their 
opinion on this case public. There is no decision of the ICANN board on 
this case, so there is no formal grounds for appeal.

It is expected that the applicant for the Bulgarian IDN, which happens 
to be the Bulgarian Government will give up. This makes things even more 
political in very undesirable for ICANN ways. By the way, the Bulgarian 
Government was almost successfully confused to think they are the party 
doing wrong, but consultation with various parties and repeated public 
pools indicated this is not the case.

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 ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Dec  1 09:13:16 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 12:13:16 -0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=zkZPbWQT5KCVfZNvsMTc+mmjrEb+rB-r_VN=C@mail.gmail.com> <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> <AANLkTimC0SPGRUZ8jk-oAfwAVam3E3ehM4PsUmK68KcR@mail.gmail.com> <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg>
Message-ID: <4CF657FC.9030702@cafonso.ca>

Dear people,

Writing in my personal capacity and *not* as a member of CGI.br, I agree 
with Avri that the decision making processes within Icann are frequently 
questionable, and I defend the right of Bulgaria to choose the IDN ".бг" 
for their ccTLD, on the additional grounds that the it is not a case 
comparable to the "py" one, notwithstanding the visual acuity of users.

fraternal regards

--c.a.

On 12/01/2010 11:47 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
> On 01.12.10 15:32, McTim wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria<avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS
>>> Stability Panel for that, no?
>>>
>>> And how is that not ICANN making the decision?
>> I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the
>> decision.
>>
>
> The process is such, that ICANN staff has made decision that they will
> not continue the Bulgarian application evaluation, because their
> subcontractor, the DNS Stability Panel (who are pretty much anonymous,
> by the way -- very much unacceptable for such task) has indicated there
> MAY be confusion.
>
>>> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does
>>> not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard.
>>>
>>> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and
>>> cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these
>>> outsourced entities. But by ICANN process every decisions is
>>> eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can
>>> probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies
>>> something it shouldn't.
>> It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board
>> reverse the DNS Stability Panel.
>>
>> I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong.
>>
> This issue ceased to be technical, at the moment when the ICANN staff
> has decided to act this way. The issue with the Bulgarian application is
> already pretty much political and is getting more and more attention,
> because the approach is simply wrong (this merits separate discussion,
> in fact, related to the Internet Governance issues).
>
> Even more absurd is that, the ICANN board has never ever made their
> opinion on this case public. There is no decision of the ICANN board on
> this case, so there is no formal grounds for appeal.
>
> It is expected that the applicant for the Bulgarian IDN, which happens
> to be the Bulgarian Government will give up. This makes things even more
> political in very undesirable for ICANN ways. By the way, the Bulgarian
> Government was almost successfully confused to think they are the party
> doing wrong, but consultation with various parties and repeated public
> pools indicated this is not the case.
>
> 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
>

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
====================================
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 aizu at anr.org  Wed Dec  1 09:26:03 2010
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 23:26:03 +0900
Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1251?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.?=
 =?WINDOWS-1251?Q?=E1=E3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <4CF657FC.9030702@cafonso.ca>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
 <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=zkZPbWQT5KCVfZNvsMTc+mmjrEb+rB-r_VN=C@mail.gmail.com>
 <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org> <AANLkTimC0SPGRUZ8jk-oAfwAVam3E3ehM4PsUmK68KcR@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg> <4CF657FC.9030702@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2paDdkGL=ANvuqofMH52U3O2PzhJtCxvh5fp5@mail.gmail.com>

Being an ex-ALAC member and still engaged as one of ALSs of AtLarge,
I also question why ".бг" is not acceptable as IDN ccTLD for Bulgaria.
EVEN if non-Bulgaria people like myself does not understand, at the onset
at least, what it means, many will have similar problem with ”中国", "中國",
"台湾", "臺湾" etc, who cannot read Chinese characters. But those who
do understand what ".бг" are the targeted users and that is, in my view,
perfectly understandable. By introducing IDNs, we will face the expanded
diversity, and for us it's a good thing to learn, not to worry about.

As someone already pointed out, IF there already exists ".6b", then
the story can be different. But that is not the case.

I also think the decision by the part of ICANN is, in a larger view, ICANN's
decision, if not the final one. Especially the DNS stability panel is authorized
for their work by ICANN Board, and there is no appeal process there.

This is not as coordinator, but purely speaking for myself.

izumi


2010/12/1 Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>:
> Dear people,
>
> Writing in my personal capacity and *not* as a member of CGI.br, I agree
> with Avri that the decision making processes within Icann are frequently
> questionable, and I defend the right of Bulgaria to choose the IDN ".бг" for
> their ccTLD, on the additional grounds that the it is not a case comparable
> to the "py" one, notwithstanding the visual acuity of users.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 12/01/2010 11:47 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>>
>> On 01.12.10 15:32, McTim wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria<avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS
>>>> Stability Panel for that, no?
>>>>
>>>> And how is that not ICANN making the decision?
>>>
>>> I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the
>>> decision.
>>>
>>
>> The process is such, that ICANN staff has made decision that they will
>> not continue the Bulgarian application evaluation, because their
>> subcontractor, the DNS Stability Panel (who are pretty much anonymous,
>> by the way -- very much unacceptable for such task) has indicated there
>> MAY be confusion.
>>
>>>> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does
>>>> not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard.
>>>>
>>>> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and
>>>> cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these
>>>> outsourced entities. But by ICANN process every decisions is
>>>> eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can
>>>> probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies
>>>> something it shouldn't.
>>>
>>> It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board
>>> reverse the DNS Stability Panel.
>>>
>>> I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong.
>>>
>> This issue ceased to be technical, at the moment when the ICANN staff
>> has decided to act this way. The issue with the Bulgarian application is
>> already pretty much political and is getting more and more attention,
>> because the approach is simply wrong (this merits separate discussion,
>> in fact, related to the Internet Governance issues).
>>
>> Even more absurd is that, the ICANN board has never ever made their
>> opinion on this case public. There is no decision of the ICANN board on
>> this case, so there is no formal grounds for appeal.
>>
>> It is expected that the applicant for the Bulgarian IDN, which happens
>> to be the Bulgarian Government will give up. This makes things even more
>> political in very undesirable for ICANN ways. By the way, the Bulgarian
>> Government was almost successfully confused to think they are the party
>> doing wrong, but consultation with various parties and repeated public
>> pools indicated this is not the case.
>>
>> 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Wed Dec  1 11:20:46 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 11:20:46 -0500
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-2022-JP?B?SXMgcmVhbGx5IEJ1bGdhcmlhbiBD?=
 =?ISO-2022-JP?B?eXJpbGxpYyAuGyRCJ1InVBsoQiAoLmJnKSBzaW1pbGFyIHRvIG90aGVy?=
 =?ISO-2022-JP?B?IExhdGluIGNjVExEcz8=?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin2paDdkGL=ANvuqofMH52U3O2PzhJtCxvh5fp5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
 <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
 <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=zkZPbWQT5KCVfZNvsMTc+mmjrEb+rB-r_VN=C@mail.gmail.com>
 <55CA4974-7146-4C23-B554-A44564568F5D@acm.org>
 <AANLkTimC0SPGRUZ8jk-oAfwAVam3E3ehM4PsUmK68KcR@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF651FC.40000@digsys.bg>
 <4CF657FC.9030702@cafonso.ca>,<AANLkTin2paDdkGL=ANvuqofMH52U3O2PzhJtCxvh5fp5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EC3@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

This discussion highlights yet again how ICANN undermines itself by having to defend decisions made without transparent and objective procedures in place.

I personally don't see how this decision does not get reversed, since the core issue seems to be the visual acuity of one or members of the DNS Stability Council, and/or ICANN staff who don't speak or read Bulgarian.  

Who I guess are not the target market.

The staff/consultants problems are however more easily fixed than yet another non-transparent ICANN process.

Lee
________________________________________
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [aizu at anr.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 01, 2010 9:26 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Carlos A. Afonso
Cc: Daniel Kalchev
Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?

Being an ex-ALAC member and still engaged as one of ALSs of AtLarge,
I also question why ".бг" is not acceptable as IDN ccTLD for Bulgaria.
EVEN if non-Bulgaria people like myself does not understand, at the onset
at least, what it means, many will have similar problem with ”中国", "中國",
"台湾", "臺湾" etc, who cannot read Chinese characters. But those who
do understand what ".бг" are the targeted users and that is, in my view,
perfectly understandable. By introducing IDNs, we will face the expanded
diversity, and for us it's a good thing to learn, not to worry about.

As someone already pointed out, IF there already exists ".6b", then
the story can be different. But that is not the case.

I also think the decision by the part of ICANN is, in a larger view, ICANN's
decision, if not the final one. Especially the DNS stability panel is authorized
for their work by ICANN Board, and there is no appeal process there.

This is not as coordinator, but purely speaking for myself.

izumi


2010/12/1 Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca>:
> Dear people,
>
> Writing in my personal capacity and *not* as a member of CGI.br, I agree
> with Avri that the decision making processes within Icann are frequently
> questionable, and I defend the right of Bulgaria to choose the IDN ".бг" for
> their ccTLD, on the additional grounds that the it is not a case comparable
> to the "py" one, notwithstanding the visual acuity of users.
>
> fraternal regards
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 12/01/2010 11:47 AM, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
>>
>> On 01.12.10 15:32, McTim wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Avri Doria<avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 1 Dec 2010, at 08:02, McTim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ICANN itself didn't make this decision did it, they have a DNS
>>>> Stability Panel for that, no?
>>>>
>>>> And how is that not ICANN making the decision?
>>>
>>> I was referring to the fact that it wasn't ICANN staff making the
>>> decision.
>>>
>>
>> The process is such, that ICANN staff has made decision that they will
>> not continue the Bulgarian application evaluation, because their
>> subcontractor, the DNS Stability Panel (who are pretty much anonymous,
>> by the way -- very much unacceptable for such task) has indicated there
>> MAY be confusion.
>>
>>>> Just because ICANN outsources part of the work to a few experts does
>>>> not remove the responsibility from ICANN and its staffboard.
>>>>
>>>> But one of the huge deficiencies in the new TLD processes, both g and
>>>> cc fast track, is that there is no appeal from some of these
>>>> outsourced entities. But by ICANN process every decisions is
>>>> eventually approved by the Board, so at the end of the day, one can
>>>> probably ask for reconsideration once the Board approves or denies
>>>> something it shouldn't.
>>>
>>> It would have to be a pretty compelling argument to make the Board
>>> reverse the DNS Stability Panel.
>>>
>>> I don't see it in this case, but could be wrong.
>>>
>> This issue ceased to be technical, at the moment when the ICANN staff
>> has decided to act this way. The issue with the Bulgarian application is
>> already pretty much political and is getting more and more attention,
>> because the approach is simply wrong (this merits separate discussion,
>> in fact, related to the Internet Governance issues).
>>
>> Even more absurd is that, the ICANN board has never ever made their
>> opinion on this case public. There is no decision of the ICANN board on
>> this case, so there is no formal grounds for appeal.
>>
>> It is expected that the applicant for the Bulgarian IDN, which happens
>> to be the Bulgarian Government will give up. This makes things even more
>> political in very undesirable for ICANN ways. By the way, the Bulgarian
>> Government was almost successfully confused to think they are the party
>> doing wrong, but consultation with various parties and repeated public
>> pools indicated this is not the case.
>>
>> 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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From pwilson at apnic.net  Wed Dec  1 20:07:06 2010
From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson)
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:07:06 +1000
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_(.bg)_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
 	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
 	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
 	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
 <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>

In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of domain 
names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting and other 
forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well before 
IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda.

The solution, also an old one, is website certification which helps a 
domain name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the right 
people.  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser 
enhancements which make friendly use of that information, is all part of 
ensuring that users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name 
confusion.

With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be more 
widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view [sic] 
that new TLDs actually have some value in their own right...

Speaking for myself only.

Paul.




--On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> 
wrote:

> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly
> legitimate cyrillic cctld.
>
> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their
> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already
> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3
> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets.



________________________________________________________________________
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100

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

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 Dec  1 21:37:28 2010
From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well))
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:37:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_.=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3?=
In-Reply-To: <1291151781.24225.1407957667@webmail.messagingengine.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
	<1291151781.24225.1407957667@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikCn53p=nkHCdaeua3Ka7pqYPReOFwOdNsKY3RF@mail.gmail.com>

Hi George,

While playing peekaboo with ICANN you might investigate other options:
a- setup a Bulgarian root,
b- contact an open root server for hosting .бг,
c- file a complaint before the European Commission for abuse of monopolistic
position by ICANN.

Ok, option c is not a fast track. But it offers the opportunity to aggregate
a series of other abuses, like delays, unjustified fees, lack of
accountability, conflicts of interests, thwarting competition, devious
procedures, etc..
Other European organizations may very well join Bulgaria in the case.

Cheers
- - -

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:16 PM, George Todoroff
<george_todoroff at imap.cc>wrote:

> Thanks to everybody for the replies.
>
> According to article IV, section 2 of the ICANN Bylaws, the
> "Reconsideration Request" is only for ICANN board or staff action /
> inaction. As far as I know, the DNS Stability panel is neither part of the
> ICANN board, nor a part of the staff.
>
> The "Independent Review" is also for any board decisions.
>
> I see no way how to trigger those procedures now. Maybe only if the ICANN
> board reviews the comments from the fast-track review public comment period,
> and does nothing - then Bulgaria will be able to start the reconsideration
> request for "inaction".
>
> --
>  Cheers,
>  George Todoroff
>  george_todoroff at imap.cc
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101202/a7bccee0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From Guru at ITforChange.net  Wed Dec  1 22:49:58 2010
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:19:58 +0530
Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US homeland
 security pressure
Message-ID: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net>

It seems that FOE is to be selectively applied / prescribed for the rest 
of the world.

regards,
Guru

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon#cablegate

WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US homeland security pressure

Site hosting leaked US embassy cables is ousted from American servers
as senator calls for boycott of WikiLeaks by companies

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 1 December 2010 19.59 GMT

WikiLeaks's website cablegate.wikileaks.org, which was hosted by Amazon.

The United States struck its first blow against WikiLeaks today after
Amazon.com pulled the plug on hosting the whistleblowing website in an
apparent reaction to heavy political pressure.

The main website and a sub-site devoted to the diplomatic documents
were unavailable from the US and Europe on Wednesday, as Amazon
servers refused to acknowledge requests for data.

The plug was pulled as the influential senator and chairman of the
homeland security committee Joe Lieberman called for a boycott of the
site by US companies.

"(Amazon's) decision to cut off WikiLeaks now is the right decision
and should set the standard for other companies WikiLeaks is using to
distribute its illegally seized material," he said in a statement. "I
call on any other company or organization that is hosting WikiLeaks to
immediately terminate its relationship with them."

WikiLeaks tweeted in response: "WikiLeaks servers at Amazon ousted.
Free speech the land of the free--fine our $ are now spent to employ
people in Europe."

The development came amid increasingly angry and polarised political
opinion in America over WikiLeaks, with some conservatives calling for
the organisation's founder, Julian Assange, to be executed as a spy.

Availability of his website has been patchy since Sunday, when it
started to come under a series of internet-based attacks by unknown
hackers. WikiLeaks dealt with the attacks in part by moving to servers
run by Amazon Web Services, which is self-service.

Amazon.com would not comment on its relationship with WikiLeaks or
whether it forced the site to leave. Messages seeking comment from
WikiLeaks were not immediately returned.

The fury building up among rightwingers in the US, ranging from the
potential Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to
conservative blog sites such as Red State, contrasts with a measured
response from the Obama administration.

The White House, the state department and the Pentagon continued to
denounce the leaks, describing them as "despicable". But senior
administration officials, with a sense of weary resignation, also
called on people to put the leaks into context and insisted they had
not done serious damage to US relations.

The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, interviewed on
television, shrugged aside as "ridiculous" a call by Assange,
interviewed by Time magazine, via Skype from an undisclosed location,
for the resignation of the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, over
an order to spy on the United Nations.

"I'm not entirely sure why we care about the opinion of one guy with
one website," Gibbs said. "Our foreign policy and the interests of
this country are far stronger than his one website."

John Kerry, the Democratic head of the Senate foreign relations
committee, on Sunday denounced the leaks but he sounded more sanguine
at an event in Washington on Tuesday night.

He said there was a "silver lining" in that it was now clear where
everyone stood on Iran. "Things that I have heard from the mouths of
King Abdullah [of Saudi Arabia] and Hosni Mubarak [Egyptian president]
and others are now quite public," Kerry said. He went on to say there
was a "consensus on Iran".

But others, particularly rightwingers, are seeking retribution, with
Assange as the prime target. Legal experts in the US were divided over
whether the US could successfully prosecute Assange under the 1917
Espionage Act. Sceptics said that the US protections for journalists
would make such a prosecution difficult and also cited pragmatic
issues, such as the difficulty of extraditing Assange.

Huckabee, who was among the contenders for the Republican presidential
nomination in 2008 and is likely to stand again in 2012, told the
Politico website: "Whoever in our government leaked that information
is guilty of treason, and I think anything less than execution is too
kind a penalty."

His later comments suggest he had in mind Bradley Manning, the US
private in Iraq who is suspected of leaking the information and is
under arrest in Virginia, rather than Assange.

Another potential Republican candidate for the presidency, Sarah
Palin, had earlier called for Assange to be hunted down.

Conservative blogsites and commentators are full of ire directed at
Assange, and criticism of the Obama administration for its seeming
inability to do anything about it.

Typical is a blog by lexington_concord on Red State, a popular
rightwing site, in which the writers says Assange is a spy.

"Under the traditional rules of engagement he is thus subject to
summary execution and my preferred course of action would [be] for
Assange to find a small calibre round in the back of his head."

The attorney general, Eric Holder, earlier this week hinted at legal
action but did not clarify whether his words were aimed at Manning or
Assange. A department of justice spokeswoman failed to clarify this
yesterday: "He [Holder] said the department would pursue those to be
found violating the law." She added she was not commenting on the
scope or direction of the investigation.

The Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell, interviewed on Fox,
suggested Holder's reference had been to Assange. Asked why the US was
not mounting a cyberattack on WikiLeaks, Morrell said the disclosures
were awkward and embarrassing but these were not sufficient grounds
for offensive action.

He referred back to comments made the previous day by the defence
secretary, Robert Gates, who attempted to put the leaks in
perspective. Gates said: "Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward?
Yes. Consequences for US foreign policy: I think fairly modest."

A former defence secretary under Bill Clinton, William Cohen, echoed
Gates, saying that the information was probably not fatal. Cohen
joined the chorus calling for Assange to be prosecuted, provided he
can be found.

"He may be hiding in a cave with Osama bin Laden. We don't know where
he is but I am confident we will find him in the near future. He will
be arrested and brought to justice," Cohen said.

Ruth Wedgwood, a former federal prosecutor and Johns Hopkins law
professor, said, in an email exchange, that Assange, an Australian,
could prosecuted. "A person who steals or knowingly receives and
transmits protected national security information is not exempt from
US criminal law merely because he is foreigner. The Espionage Act has
been used to prosecute foreign defendants as well as Americans.

"Freedom of the press and the First Amendment would not shelter
someone who deliberately steals tens of thousands of closely-held
communications containing national security and defence information,
and wantonly publishes them to both friends and foes alike, with
heedless disregard for the damage that is caused."

Floyd Abrams, the constitutional expert who has argued before the
supreme court on the First Amendment, which enshrines press freedom,
was more sceptical. He said the government had a plausible case under
the Espionage Act, which is phrased very broadly.

The government had looked in 1971 at prosecution of the New York Times
over the Pentagon Papers leak and decided against. "Here I think it is
a closer call. The documents are much more current and they have the
potential to do more harm, for example the reference to the King of
Saudi Arabia urging the US to bomb Iran," Abrams said in an phone
interview.

"I think for the government it must be a close call. On the one hand,
the leaks are of such magnitude and involve topics of such sensitivity
and currency, it must be tempting to consider prosecution but on the
other hand the government would be forced to address difficult and
sensitive issues of whether a journalist could be accused of violating
the law."

He added that Assange was not a journalist but does some of the things
associated with journalism.

Another legal expert, Scott Silliman, a professor at the Duke
University School of Law, said: "A US prosecution of Assange would be
possible, but it would be fraught with problems for the government.
The applicable statute, section 793(e) of the Espionage Act, is
somewhat ambiguous when dealing with a case of this type where the
accused claims to be part of or allied with the media. Further, there
will probably be difficulties in having Assange extradited to the
United States for trial."
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  1 23:48:15 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 07:48:15 +0300
Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US
 homeland
In-Reply-To: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=_auVowRCCM5AbrZhPan3b05yAZSy34argt3Cq@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Guru,

2010/12/2 Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net>:
> It seems that FOE is to be selectively applied / prescribed for the rest of
> the world.


I'm not sure this is a FOE issue.

If I hacked IT4Change system and published all documents of yours
whether sensitive or no, would that be my right to FOE?

I was actually very surprised that Amazon took this into their Cloud
in the first place.  I am not surprised that they caved to pressure
however.

This is not to say that the documents are unavailable however.  Now
that folk are torrenting them, they will be available online for a
long, long time.


-- 
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  Thu Dec  2 00:43:20 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 11:13:20 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
Message-ID: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net>

Hi All

A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically 
focus on the following two questions.

   1. What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet
      are not being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?
   2. What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international
      cooperation in these areas?

IT for Change made an additional input addressing these questions, which 
is enclosed.

parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101202/a746be46/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: EC statement 2 - IT for Change- 301110.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 159386 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101202/a746be46/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Dec  2 02:27:20 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 10:27:20 +0300
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> Hi All
>
> A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus
> on the following two questions.
>
> What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not
> being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?
> What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international
> cooperation in these areas?
>
> IT for Change made an additional input addressing these questions, which is
> enclosed.

I find it highly ironic that your organisation wants both FOE as
indicated in an earlier mail by Guru AND and a new, powerful, dynamic
GIC which would (IMHO) stop folk like wikileaks.

I submit that you can't have both.

-- 
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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Dec  2 00:58:50 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:58:50 +0800
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>

On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote:

> A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus on the following two questions.
> 
> What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?
> What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international cooperation in these areas?

Thanks, I missed this.  Are there any views that we as the IGC would like to add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions?  It is likely that we will have one or two IGC representatives present at this month's enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm discussing with them off-list), who could deliver our further contributions on these questions.
> 

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101202/dfc2d564/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101202/dfc2d564/attachment.bin>

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Dec  2 03:37:14 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 11:37:14 +0300
Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US
 homeland
In-Reply-To: <4CF748C2.7090901@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net> <AANLkTi=_auVowRCCM5AbrZhPan3b05yAZSy34argt3Cq@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF748C2.7090901@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinAyDYJd5EhXssuRahBAihbzxiK9qwmsVR+wew_@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

2010/12/2 Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net>:
> McTim wrote:
>
> Hello Guru,
>
> 2010/12/2 Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net>:
>
>
> It seems that FOE is to be selectively applied / prescribed for the rest of
> the world.
>
>
> I'm not sure this is a FOE issue.
>
> If I hacked IT4Change system and published all documents of yours
> whether sensitive or no, would that be my right to FOE?
>

I note that you haven't answered my question.

>
> The point is, how does a western private entity (Amazon) censor information
> on basis of political pressures in the US, without any due process of law
> being followed - is this not violation of FOE?

I don't know if it was political pressure, more of the threat of a
boycott.  the decision to take wikileaks as a hosting customer clearly
wasn't thought through very well.

Was it a violation of FOE or censorship? probably not.  If it was,
then doesn't this add more weight to the argument NOT to give
governments greater control over Internet policy issues?

If one sees the USG docs as USG Intellectual Property, then its easy
to see how the amazon.com domain could have been seized, as we saw in
other cases last week.  Chilling indeed for a corporation like Amazon.

>
> Secondly, Govts have a larger accountability to the public - this is now
> popular in many countries as 'freedom of information' or 'right to
> information' where the public has a right to government information, with
> specified exceptions - so comparing USG to IT for Change is not useful.

Most of this information would have been blacked out in any FOI
request release...or just not made available period.


My point is that if your org has sensitive (or not) information, do
you not have an interest in having it not released to the public?
Would you not be a tad upset if all of your emails for example were
put online by a hacker?  I think you might.

-- 
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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Thu Dec  2 02:20:34 2010
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 12:50:34 +0530
Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US
 homeland
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=_auVowRCCM5AbrZhPan3b05yAZSy34argt3Cq@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net> <AANLkTi=_auVowRCCM5AbrZhPan3b05yAZSy34argt3Cq@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF748C2.7090901@ITforChange.net>

McTim wrote:
> Hello Guru,
>
> 2010/12/2 Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net>:
>   
>> It seems that FOE is to be selectively applied / prescribed for the rest of
>> the world.
>>     
>
> I'm not sure this is a FOE issue.
>
> If I hacked IT4Change system and published all documents of yours
> whether sensitive or no, would that be my right to FOE?
>   
The point is, how does a western private entity (Amazon) censor 
information on basis of political pressures in the US, without _any due 
process of law being followed _- is this not violation of FOE?

Secondly, Govts have a larger accountability to the public - this is now 
popular in many countries as 'freedom of information' or 'right to 
information' where the public has a right to government information, 
with specified exceptions - so comparing USG to IT for Change is not 
useful.

> I was actually very surprised that Amazon took this into their Cloud
> in the first place.  I am not surprised that they caved to pressure
> however.
>   
what is the nature of this pressure and caving in, how does it fit with 
the 'foe' prescriptions to the rest of world.
> This is not to say that the documents are unavailable however.  Now
> that folk are torrenting them, they will be available online for a
> long, long time.
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101202/63f32d33/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int  Thu Dec  2 04:34:12 2010
From: karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int (karim.attoumanimohamed at ties.itu.int)
Date: Thu,  2 Dec 2010 10:34:12 +0100
Subject: [governance] =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E?=
 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=D0=B1=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com> <AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com> <500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org> <AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1291282452.4cf768140d494@gold.itu.ch>

Dear All,

I find this article from CircleID
http://www.circleid.com/posts/string_similarity_case_of_the_bulgarian_cyrillic_idn_vs_brazil_cctld/
interesting. The author Vassil Petev  raised the controverse between bulgarian
cyrillic idn and brazil cctld and asked ICANN to consider the context in which
the similar strings are used.

Thank you all and regards,

-- 
ATTOUMANI MOHAMED Karim,
Comoros representative on the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN
Ingénieur Télécoms en Transmission, Réseaux et Commutation
Chef du Département Études et Projets,
Autorité Nationale de Régulation des TIC (ANRTIC) - Union des Comores,
(+269) 334 37 06 (Mobile Moroni) - ID Skype: attoukarim


Quoting "Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com>:

> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly
> legitimate
> cyrillic cctld.
> 
> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their
> illegitimate
> "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already totally confusing
> by
> their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3 from 8, they should get
> better glasses or font sets.
> 



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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From petko.kolev49 at gmail.com  Thu Dec  2 09:55:57 2010
From: petko.kolev49 at gmail.com (Petko Kolev)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 16:55:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
	<AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
	<1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>

Dear All,

I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important:

http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from today)

Yours,
Petko

Bulgarian IT Users Group

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of domain
> names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting and other
> forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well before
> IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda.
>
> The solution, also an old one, is website certification which helps a domain
> name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the right people.
>  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser enhancements
> which make friendly use of that information, is all part of ensuring that
> users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name confusion.
>
> With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be more
> widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view [sic] that
> new TLDs actually have some value in their own right...
>
> Speaking for myself only.
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
>
> --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly
>> legitimate cyrillic cctld.
>>
>> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their
>> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already
>> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from б, or 3
>> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets.
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Guru at ITforChange.net  Thu Dec  2 11:53:24 2010
From: Guru at ITforChange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=)
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:23:24 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net>

McTim wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>   
>> Hi All
>>
>> A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus
>> on the following two questions.
>>
>> What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not
>> being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?
>> What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international
>> cooperation in these areas?
>>
>> IT for Change made an additional input addressing these questions, which is
>> enclosed.
>>     
>
> I find it highly ironic that your organisation wants both FOE as
> indicated in an earlier mail by Guru AND and a new, powerful, dynamic
> GIC which would (IMHO) stop folk like wikileaks.
>
> I submit that you can't have both.
>
>   
Did you also find it highly ironic that someone who comes across as 
taking the constant position of govt = evil is able to defend infomation 
being censored though political pressures that are extra constitutional 
/ beyond processes of law? But both ironies are beside the point.

Global public policy mechanisms are required precisely to address this 
unilateral use of power - if the wikileaks info petained to France or 
Japan, let alone any developing county, would Amazon have pulled them down?
Or are you saying that the unilateral power of USG/US is better than an 
international structure/process
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101202/26aecce9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  2 12:08:18 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 20:08:18 +0300
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikvpbm4=mk9n1WsALC_Pjb-nwh1aGvJ4HY2m9Sj@mail.gmail.com>

2010/12/2 Guru गुरु <Guru at itforchange.net>:
> McTim wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:43 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi All
>
> A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus
> on the following two questions.
>
> What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not
> being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?
> What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international
> cooperation in these areas?
>
> IT for Change made an additional input addressing these questions, which is
> enclosed.
>
>
> I find it highly ironic that your organisation wants both FOE as
> indicated in an earlier mail by Guru AND and a new, powerful, dynamic
> GIC which would (IMHO) stop folk like wikileaks.
>
> I submit that you can't have both.
>
>
>
> Did you also find it highly ironic that someone who comes across as taking
> the constant position of govt = evil

I've never taken that position.  I just don't want to give them any
more control than they already have in IG issues.

is able to defend infomation being
> censored though political pressures that are extra constitutional / beyond

I don't think I've ever defended censorship, if you have interpreted
my statements as such, perhaps you should read them again.


> processes of law? But both ironies are beside the point.
>
> Global public policy mechanisms are required precisely to address this
> unilateral use of power - if the wikileaks info petained to France or Japan,
> let alone any developing county, would Amazon have pulled them down?


Perhaps, if that meant losing business to a boycott from those economies.

> Or are you saying that the unilateral power of USG/US is better than an
> international structure/process

Neither.  An international structure would not have prevented a
government (the USG in this case) from (allegedly) putting the squeeze
on a corporation based in their territory.

As we have seen the USG is perfectly capable of seizing domains
without resorting to any strings in re: IANA/ICANN.

As I have said many times before, i'd like a "free-floating ICANN",
accountable to its governing board.  I see no need for any
governmental interference, whether from the USG or any other.

Are you going to answer my question, (to wit; Can I steal your
documents and publish them online as part of my FOE?) ...or should I
give up?

-- 
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 avri at psg.com  Thu Dec  2 12:26:07 2010
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 12:26:07 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net>
Message-ID: <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com>

Hi,

I find lots of things ironic in the persecution of wikileaks and the upcoming martyrdom of Assange.

I do not find it particularly ironic that a company is pressured to pull down the website in this extreme environment where most all of the countries of the world are screaming for his head and willing to get it in any way they can.

I think it is highly ironic that the first time Interpol cares about a rape, I mean the quest to question someone over a possible case of rape and sexual abuse, enough to make someone Most Wanted.  If only they cared about all possible rapes and cases of sexual abuse with that degree of urgency.  Normally I have a guilty until proven innocent view on accusations of rape (I know, this is a character fault) but in this case the happenstance of the accusations and the wikileaks Iraq papers, and now the ratcheting up when the cables are leaked make me somewhat suspicious.  In fact I see this as terrible gender exploitation by the powers that be.  Can't wait to see the  insanity when they start leaking about the banks, probably accuse him of pedophilia. 

To answer your question, i think almost any server in the world would have been pressured to pull down wikileaks pages.  If only there were countries who provided a safe haven for information.  Would Amazon have done if France asked?  Probably - depends on how much of their business the French government can mess with and depends on whether they might be accused of assisting and abetting espionage in French courts.  I even bet that if his server was in India, it would have been pulled down if the India government cared about the leaks and said 'boo'.  And as long as governments insist on their sovereignty, no global central committee for internet governance policy is going to make any difference in this sort of issue.

I wonder does anyone care about the content of the cables and what they have to say about various countries' attitudes and positions?

a.

Ps. Then again Palin says he should be hunted like the Taliban.   So what more is there to say!


On 2 Dec 2010, at 11:53, Guru गुरु wrote:

> Did you also find it highly ironic that someone who comes across as taking the constant position of govt = evil is able to defend infomation being censored though political pressures that are extra constitutional / beyond processes of law? But both ironies are beside the point.
> 
> Global public policy mechanisms are required precisely to address this unilateral use of power - if the wikileaks info petained to France or Japan, let alone any developing county, would Amazon have pulled them down? 
> Or are you saying that the unilateral power of USG/US is better than an international structure/process
> ____________________________________________________________

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Thu Dec  2 19:02:37 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:02:37 +0800
Subject: [governance] Our representation at the Enhanced Cooperation
 consultation
Message-ID: <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904@ciroap.org>

David Allen has very kindly agreed to attend the Enhanced Cooperation consulation in New York on 14 December to represent the IGC, and hopefully to discuss our submission with the representative of CONGO, Liberato Bautista, who is meant to be summarising the views of civil society.

Many thanks also to Milton Mueller who had also offered to attend if necessary, though we now won't need to impose on him for this (it would have been a very early flight).

Anyone else who would like to attend is very welcome to do so.  It is to be held in Conference Room 2-North Lawn Building, United Nations, (entrance at 46th Street and First Avenue, New York, NY 10017), from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.  If you want the (possible) opportunity to speak, you have to register at http://www.unpan.org/dpadm/wsisfollowup/.

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/6693a82e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/6693a82e/attachment.bin>

From yehudakatz at mailinator.com  Thu Dec  2 22:19:48 2010
From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz)
Date: Thu,  2 Dec 2010 19:19:48 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <sympa.1291346017.7759.183@lists.cpsr.org>

Re:
>1.What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not >being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?

To me the WHOIS System is a mess enough in English, I can't imagine an Internationtionalized WhoIs Postal Addressing system that can be universally recognized, in as far as native-language postal addresses.

>2.What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international >cooperation in these areas? 

An enumeralization system for Whois who, in which real Postal Addresses can be translated into multiple languages.
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  2 23:45:52 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:45:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com>
Message-ID: <665693F4-50D1-499D-A1E1-EEEB817A232C@acm.org>


On 2 Dec 2010, at 12:26, Avri Doria wrote:

>  find lots of things ironic in the persecution of wikileaks 


e.g.

that the US is pushing Interpol to use a Red Notice to  get Assange 
yet the US is not assisting Interpol in using a Red Notice to get Cheney for war crimes.

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 parminder at itforchange.net  Fri Dec  3 00:12:46 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 10:42:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com>
Message-ID: <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net>



On Thursday 02 December 2010 10:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I find lots of things ironic in the persecution of wikileaks and the upcoming martyrdom of Assange.
>
> I do not find it particularly ironic that a company is pressured to pull down the website in this extreme environment where most all of the countries of the world are screaming for his head and willing to get it in any way they can.
>
> I think it is highly ironic that the first time Interpol cares about a rape, I mean the quest to question someone over a possible case of rape and sexual abuse, enough to make someone Most Wanted.  If only they cared about all possible rapes and cases of sexual abuse with that degree of urgency.  Normally I have a guilty until proven innocent view on accusations of rape (I know, this is a character fault) but in this case the happenstance of the accusations and the wikileaks Iraq papers, and now the ratcheting up when the cables are leaked make me somewhat suspicious.  In fact I see this as terrible gender exploitation by the powers that be.  Can't wait to see the  insanity when they start leaking about the banks, probably accuse him of pedophilia.
>
> To answer your question, i think almost any server in the world would have been pressured to pull down wikileaks pages.  If only there were countries who provided a safe haven for information.  Would Amazon have done if France asked?  Probably - depends on how much of their business the French government can mess with and depends on whether they might be accused of assisting and abetting espionage in French courts.  I even bet that if his server was in India, it would have been pulled down if the India government cared about the leaks and said 'boo'.  And as long as governments insist on their sovereignty, no global central committee for internet governance policy is going to make any difference in this sort of issue.
>    
If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially 
vis a vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then 
you need to have alternative globally democratic power (or governance) 
centres. That is what IT for Change's input for enhanced cooperation 
seeks. The sovereignty of countries have been successfully diminished by 
arrangements like WTO and WIPO, though in these cases quite often to the 
detriment to the less powerful countries.

Otherwise things will work through ad hoc use of power, by the law of 
the jungle, as we see in the present instance. If you have raw power you 
can  get things done, if you havent , dont even bother to complaint, 
just understand that is how things are and you better get used to it.

As you would have noticed, our input seeks not only to establish a 
globally democratic governance system for these kinds of cases, but also 
to ensure that it doesnt work arbitrarily, seeking codification of 
principles by which it would work (our framework convention proposal). 
If the global community could agree to codify Human Rights in 1947, I 
trust we can codify good global principles for the Internet in 2010. I 
dont see any reason why we cannot. Though would be happy to hear other 
views on how the situation that we are in at present can be effectively 
addressed.

Parminder


Parminder


> I wonder does anyone care about the content of the cables and what they have to say about various countries' attitudes and positions?
>
> a.
>
> Ps. Then again Palin says he should be hunted like the Taliban.   So what more is there to say!
>
>
> On 2 Dec 2010, at 11:53, Guru गुरु wrote:
>
>    
>> Did you also find it highly ironic that someone who comes across as taking the constant position of govt = evil is able to defend infomation being censored though political pressures that are extra constitutional / beyond processes of law? But both ironies are beside the point.
>>
>> Global public policy mechanisms are required precisely to address this unilateral use of power - if the wikileaks info petained to France or Japan, let alone any developing county, would Amazon have pulled them down?
>> Or are you saying that the unilateral power of USG/US is better than an international structure/process
>> ____________________________________________________________
>>      
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/b4fded62/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Fri Dec  3 00:51:40 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 08:51:40 +0300
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com>
 <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinQ_tme+MqcQE79RsyY4=uLfH2D41vTp5Xic83E@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 02 December 2010 10:56 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I find lots of things ironic in the persecution of wikileaks and the
> upcoming martyrdom of Assange.
>
> I do not find it particularly ironic that a company is pressured to pull
> down the website in this extreme environment where most all of the countries
> of the world are screaming for his head and willing to get it in any way
> they can.
>
> I think it is highly ironic that the first time Interpol cares about a rape,
> I mean the quest to question someone over a possible case of rape and sexual
> abuse, enough to make someone Most Wanted.  If only they cared about all
> possible rapes and cases of sexual abuse with that degree of urgency.
> Normally I have a guilty until proven innocent view on accusations of rape
> (I know, this is a character fault) but in this case the happenstance of the
> accusations and the wikileaks Iraq papers, and now the ratcheting up when
> the cables are leaked make me somewhat suspicious.  In fact I see this as
> terrible gender exploitation by the powers that be.  Can't wait to see the
> insanity when they start leaking about the banks, probably accuse him of
> pedophilia.
>
> To answer your question, i think almost any server in the world would have
> been pressured to pull down wikileaks pages.  If only there were countries
> who provided a safe haven for information.  Would Amazon have done if France
> asked?  Probably - depends on how much of their business the French
> government can mess with and depends on whether they might be accused of
> assisting and abetting espionage in French courts.  I even bet that if his
> server was in India, it would have been pulled down if the India government
> cared about the leaks and said 'boo'.  And as long as governments insist on
> their sovereignty, no global central committee for internet governance
> policy is going to make any difference in this sort of issue.
>
>
> If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a
> vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need
> to have alternative globally democratic power

I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act
unilaterally is idealistic at best.

Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand
(http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be
asserting authority of some kind.

-- 
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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Dec  3 00:36:38 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:36:38 +1100
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>


Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary jurisdiction.
They are not handled well ­ IGC has run workshops on this at the last few
IGFs.

Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the past
anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them. It¹s a mess, and
the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, the
registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get involved
in legal action against a site that offends the nation state of any of
these.


The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of some
universal principles IMHO.




From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:58:50 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs

On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote:

> A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus
> on the following two questions.
> 
> 1. What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not
> being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?
> 2.  
> 3. What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international
> cooperation in these areas?

Thanks, I missed this.  Are there any views that we as the IGC would like to
add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions?  It is likely
that we will have one or two IGC representatives present at this month's
enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm discussing with them
off-list), who could deliver our further contributions on these questions.
-- 
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
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&
int1stParentNodeID=89765> . Don't print this email unless necessary.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/4837fb2a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  3 01:04:11 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinQ_tme+MqcQE79RsyY4=uLfH2D41vTp5Xic83E@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com> <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com> <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net> <AANLkTinQ_tme+MqcQE79RsyY4=uLfH2D41vTp5Xic83E@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF8885B.1010805@itforchange.net>



On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>    
>> If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a
>> vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need
>> to have alternative globally democratic power
>>      
> I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act
> unilaterally is idealistic at best.
>    

So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of 
the jungle?

BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO, 
governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally.

About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than 
to think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction 
of all, the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most 
political discussions here.

Parminder

> Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand
> (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be
> asserting authority of some kind.
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/247c80dc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Fri Dec  3 01:09:47 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:09:47 +0300
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF8885B.1010805@itforchange.net>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net> <5A24C124-EE8C-4D23-AC37-CF773EB06DAB@psg.com>
 <4CF87C4E.7070205@itforchange.net> <AANLkTinQ_tme+MqcQE79RsyY4=uLfH2D41vTp5Xic83E@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF8885B.1010805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikHmDF6L8svKNkdLgew7Y+=zR_TOZ06ike0L_67@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 9:04 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a
> vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need
> to have alternative globally democratic power
>
>
> I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act
> unilaterally is idealistic at best.
>
>
> So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the
> jungle?

not my thinking at all.

>
> BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO,
> governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally.

The key word there being "largely".

>
> About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than to
> think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction of
> all, the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most
> political discussions here.

That's the ethos that has made the Internet so successful thus far, I
don't think we should move away from it. Perhaps i should have used
the word "naive", but I was trying to be gentle.


-- 
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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Dec  3 01:17:26 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 17:17:26 +1100
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF8885B.1010805@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C91ED6A6.1410E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Hi Parminder, I have to pick up on this

> So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the
jungle?

Except for the resultant pollution of the oceans ­ well, yes!

As an ecologist I am aware that jungles are far better behaved and
structured for co-operation than nation states. Jungle creatures are aware
of their inter dependencies and act to protect each others existence.  A
nice balance between different and complementary life forms which enhance
each other and could teach us a lot about enhanced co=operation.

I could go on at length here, but please, leave the jungles out of this if
you are looking for an analogy for some worse state of existence than nation
states. I am not sure that there is one to be honest, given the history of
silly wars , non democratic feudal behaviour, and intolerance, but if there
is a worse state it is certainly not the jungle!

Ian Peter


From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs



On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote:
>  
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>   
>  
>>  
>> 
>> If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a
>> vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need
>> to have alternative globally democratic power
>>     
>>  
>  
> 
> I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act
> unilaterally is idealistic at best.
>   

So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the
jungle?

BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO,
governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally.

About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than to
think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction of
all, the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most
political discussions here.

Parminder 

>  
> 
> Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand
> (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be
> asserting authority of some kind.
> 
>   


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/c6eb3b3d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  3 01:19:51 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:49:51 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4CF88C07.5060700@itforchange.net>



On Friday 03 December 2010 11:06 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary 
> jurisdiction. They are not handled well -- IGC has run workshops on 
> this at the last few IGFs.
>
> Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the past 
> anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them. It's a 
> mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the 
> registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation 
> could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends the 
> nation state of any of these.
>
>
> The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of 
> some universal principles IMHO.

Ian

IT for Change's contribution lists this as a key issue that needs to be 
addressed urgently, as it also speaks of formulating some universal 
principles around these kinds of issues. Parminder

>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Reply-To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Jeremy Malcolm 
> <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Date: *Thu, 2 Dec 2010 13:58:50 +0800
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
>
> On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote:
>
>     A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also
>     specifically focus on the following two questions.
>
>        1. What international public policy issues pertaining to the
>           Internet are not being adequately addressed by current
>           mechanisms?
>       2.
>
>        3. What specific processes should be pursued to enhance
>           international cooperation in these areas?
>
>
> Thanks, I missed this.  Are there any views that we as the IGC would 
> like to add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions? 
>  It is likely that we will have one or two IGC representatives present 
> at this month's enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm 
> discussing with them off-list), who could deliver our further 
> contributions on these questions.
> -- 
> *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__ 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>
> _
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>> 
> . Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/23f238d7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  3 01:32:17 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:02:17 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <C91ED6A6.1410E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C91ED6A6.1410E%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4CF88EF1.3050606@itforchange.net>



On Friday 03 December 2010 11:47 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Hi Parminder, I have to pick up on this
>
> > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of 
> the jungle?
>
> Except for the resultant pollution of the oceans -- well, yes!
>
> As an ecologist I am aware that jungles are far better behaved and 
> structured for co-operation than nation states. Jungle creatures are 
> aware of their inter dependencies and act to protect each others 
> existence.  A nice balance between different and complementary life 
> forms which enhance each other and could teach us a lot about enhanced 
> co=operation.
>
> I could go on at length here, but please, leave the jungles out of 
> this if you are looking for an analogy for some worse state of 
> existence than nation states. I am not sure that there is one to be 
> honest, given the history of silly wars , non democratic feudal 
> behaviour, and intolerance, but if there is a worse state it is 
> certainly not the jungle!

Ian,

Probably I should not say anything in response to your well-intentions 
ecological musings :), which of course have been said by putting your 
political hat aside.

However i did not invent the phrase 'law of the jungle' nor originally 
ascribe to it the meaning in which it is used which is things like 
'might is right' and 'survival of the fittest'. Darwinism may be a 
natural fact, but Darwinism applied to society is not the kind of thing 
we want to live by, right.

Parminder
>
> Ian Peter
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Reply-To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder 
> <parminder at itforchange.net>
> *Date: *Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
>
>
>
> On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote:
>
>
>     On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder
>     <parminder at itforchange.net> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>         If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims,
>         especially vis a
>         vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication,
>         then you need
>         to have alternative globally democratic power
>
>
>
>
>     I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act
>     unilaterally is idealistic at best.
>
>
> So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of 
> the jungle?
>
> BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO, 
> governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally.
>
> About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic 
> than to think that everything can self govern itself to the best 
> satisfaction of all, the kind of thinking that underlies your 
> contributions to most political discussions here.
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>     Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand
>     (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be
>     asserting authority of some kind.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/48e9f57b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Fri Dec  3 02:10:18 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 18:10:18 +1100
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF88EF1.3050606@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C91EE30A.1411F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Of course Parminder I realise that you did not invent that phrase!

But there is something attached to the continued use of that phrase (the law
of the jungle) that is symptomatic of a greater problem ­ the belief that we
as humans have evolved beyond nature and to be better than nature. We
haven¹t.

That belief that we are above and beyond nature is at the centre of many
false belief systems and resultant dysfunctional societal structures.

But I digress ­ yes I agree with the It4Change raising of transboundary
issues as a gap in current internet governance structures and your responses
here. I think IGC should adopt something similar.

Ian Peter



From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:02:17 +0530
To: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "governance at lists.cpsr.org"
<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs



On Friday 03 December 2010 11:47 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>  Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs Hi Parminder, I have
> to pick up on this
>  
>> > So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the
>> jungle?
>  
> Except for the resultant pollution of the oceans ­ well, yes!
>  
> As an ecologist I am aware that jungles are far better behaved and structured
> for co-operation than nation states. Jungle creatures are aware of their inter
> dependencies and act to protect each others existence.  A nice balance between
> different and complementary life forms which enhance each other and could
> teach us a lot about enhanced co=operation.
>  
> I could go on at length here, but please, leave the jungles out of this if you
> are looking for an analogy for some worse state of existence than nation
> states. I am not sure that there is one to be honest, given the history of
> silly wars , non democratic feudal behaviour, and intolerance, but if there is
> a worse state it is certainly not the jungle!
>  

Ian, 

Probably I should not say anything in response to your well-intentions
ecological musings :), which of course have been said by putting your
political hat aside.

However i did not invent the phrase 'law of the jungle' nor originally
ascribe to it the meaning in which it is used which is things like 'might is
right' and 'survival of the fittest'. Darwinism may be a natural fact, but
Darwinism applied to society is not the kind of thing we want to live by,
right. 

Parminder 
> 
> Ian Peter
>  
>  
> 
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>  Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>  Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530
>  To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>  Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
>  
>  
>  
> On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote:
>   
>>  
>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
>> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>>   
>>  
>>   
>>>  
>>>  
>>> If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a
>>> vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need
>>> to have alternative globally democratic power
>>>     
>>>  
>>>  
>>   
>>  
>> I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act
>> unilaterally is idealistic at best.
>>   
>>  
>  
> So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the
> jungle?
>  
> BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO,
> governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally.
>  
> About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than to
> think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction of all,
> the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most political
> discussions here.
>  
> Parminder 
>  
>   
>>  
>>  
>> Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand
>> (http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be
>> asserting authority of some kind.
>>  
>>   
>>  
>  
>  
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/e3cb91c4/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  3 02:58:19 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 23:58:19 -0800
Subject: [governance] [Gurstein's Community Informatics] A New Blogpost: The
 IDRC and "Open Development": ICT4D by and for the New Middle Class
Message-ID: <87CC14D640EA4F3497A2F3CA6B23B3F3@userPC>


This may be of interest... Apologies for duplications.

M


The IDRC and "Open Development": ICT4D by and for the New Middle Class

URL    :
http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/the-idrc-and-%e2%80%9copen-developm
ent%e2%80%9d-ict4d-by-and-for-the-new-middle-class/
 
"Certainly it is very hard to fault (or even disagree) with any of the above
except that this definition and the following paper seem to not understand
that lack of access in most developmental contexts isn't simply a failure of
reasonable people to understand that they should proceed in an "open" rather
than a "closed/restrictive" fashion.  The lack of access in many if not most
cases serves the interests of some quite well including many who gain
considerable advantage from lack of transparency, restrictions on use of
government data, the use of security designations in inappropriate contexts.
In these instances a lack of access is most frequently a function of a lack
of power in a particular social and economic context and that articulating
the good feelings attendant on an "openness" strategy are as unlikely to
change those restrictions as were the thinking of good thoughts sufficient
to stop the flow of oil from the BP Gulf catastrophe. 

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

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 Dec  3 04:56:28 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:56:28 +0000
Subject: [governance] Our representation at the Enhanced Cooperation
 consultation
In-Reply-To: <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904@ciroap.org>
References: <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <RRXfgA+M7L+MFAZ4@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904 at ciroap.org>, at 
08:02:37 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> writes

>Anyone else who would like to attend is very welcome to do so.  It is 
>to be held in Conference Room 2-North Lawn Building, United Nations, 
>(entrance at 46th Street and First Avenue, New York, NY 10017), from 
>10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Is there any pre-registration/badging requirement?

Anyone heard about a webcast (just to listen, rather than contribute).
-- 
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  Fri Dec  3 05:00:23 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 10:00:23 +0000
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 16:36:38 on Fri, 
3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes
>Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary 
>jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on this 
>at the last few IGFs.
>
>Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the past 
>anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them. It?s a mess, 
>and the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, 
>the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get 
>involved in legal action against a site that offends the nation state 
>of any of these.
>
>The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of 
>some universal principles IMHO.

Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or 
several of the OECD's initiatives are all about.

But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I can 
see.
-- 
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  Fri Dec  3 05:16:46 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:46:46 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>



On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 16:36:38 on 
> Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes
>> Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary 
>> jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on 
>> this at the last few IGFs.
>>
>> Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the past 
>> anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them. It?s a 
>> mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the 
>> registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation 
>> could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends 
>> the nation state of any of these.
>>
>> The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption 
>> of some universal principles IMHO.
>
> Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or 
> several of the OECD's initiatives are all about.
>
> But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I 
> can see.

Dear Roland,

At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my 
approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it 
again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. 
Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and global 
democracy count for anything?

On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why 
should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all 
countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here' 
remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it.

This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for 
consultations on enhanced cooperation.

Thanks

Parminder









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/60f6e35e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Fri Dec  3 05:24:43 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 05:24:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <F4586561-B021-4206-BE0A-2D5C75D502BE@acm.org>

and we have come full circle.

repeat ...

a.

On 3 Dec 2010, at 05:16, parminder wrote:

> 
> 
> On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 16:36:38 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes 
>>> Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on this at the last few IGFs. 
>>> 
>>> Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the past anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them. It?s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends the nation state of any of these. 
>>> 
>>> The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of some universal principles IMHO. 
>> 
>> Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or several of the OECD's initiatives are all about. 
>> 
>> But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I can see. 
> 
> Dear Roland, 
> 
> At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and global democracy count for anything? 
> 
> On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here' remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it.
> 
> This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for consultations on enhanced cooperation. 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Parminder 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
> 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 Dec  3 06:17:00 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 16:47:00 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <F4586561-B021-4206-BE0A-2D5C75D502BE@acm.org>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <F4586561-B021-4206-BE0A-2D5C75D502BE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net>



On Friday 03 December 2010 03:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> and we have come full circle.
>
> repeat ...
>
> a.
>    

Avri, can you please allow people to discuss what they want to discuss 
on this list and keep your supercilious one liners out of it. They are 
rather irritating, thats all. Thanks. parminder

( Also request the co-coordinators to look into this.... this is like, 
two people discussing something, and someone comes in with a line ' 
there you go again....'. Irritating and irrelevant, isnt it.)


> On 3 Dec 2010, at 05:16, parminder wrote:
>
>    
>>
>> On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>>      
>>> In message<C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 16:36:38 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com>  writes
>>>        
>>>> Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on this at the last few IGFs.
>>>>
>>>> Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the past anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them. It?s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends the nation state of any of these.
>>>>
>>>> The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of some universal principles IMHO.
>>>>          
>>> Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or several of the OECD's initiatives are all about.
>>>
>>> But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I can see.
>>>        
>> Dear Roland,
>>
>> At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and global democracy count for anything?
>>
>> On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here' remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it.
>>
>> This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for consultations on enhanced cooperation.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101203/917faee9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Fri Dec  3 09:06:06 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 15:06:06 +0100
Subject: [governance] CoE
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <F4586561-B021-4206-BE0A-2D5C75D502BE@acm.org>
 <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear Parminder
 
you always put COE and OECD in the same basket. This is noty correct. OECD has only high developed industrial nations as members, the CEO has a number of developing nations among its members. 
 
Furthermore would you accept if I invite you to serve as an external consultant for the planned CEO project on cross border Internet? I would like to see your concrete comments on the proposed "Framework of Committments" (FoC) - which will be probably a declaration of principles - and the planned recommendation on rights, duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet. 
 
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 roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Fri Dec  3 09:16:58 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 14:16:58 +0000
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3 Dec 
2010, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>  In message <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 16:36:38 on
>  Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> writes
>    Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary
>>    jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops
>>    on this at the last few IGFs.
>    Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the
>>    past anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them.
>>    It?s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country
>>    of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting
>>    organisation could all get involved in legal action against a
>>    site that offends the nation state of any of these.
>    The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the
>>    adoption of some universal principles IMHO.
 >>
>>  Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or
>  several of the OECD's initiatives are all about.
>  But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I
>  can see.
>Dear Roland,
>
>At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my
>approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it
>again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives.
>Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and
>global democracy count for anything?

That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong with 
the initiatives. That's pragmatism rather than paternalism. We are where 
we are, and if those initiatives will solve the problem - why is their 
parentage such an issue?

>On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why
>should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all
>countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here'
>remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it.

I'm "against" needless duplication, but also "for" the greater 
participation of all, in the development of future initiatives. That's 
what I do - work hard to bring new people into existing places so they 
can make their views known. And when there's a genuine vacuum, try to 
form something new to address that issue.

>This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for
>consultations on enhanced cooperation.
>Thanks
>Parminder

-- 
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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Fri Dec  3 09:29:22 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 09:29:22 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <C91EE30A.1411F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <4CF88EF1.3050606@itforchange.net>,<C91EE30A.1411F%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006ECE@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

I'll third that thought...re transboundary issues being a still significant gap.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 2:10 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs

Of course Parminder I realise that you did not invent that phrase!

But there is something attached to the continued use of that phrase (the law of the jungle) that is symptomatic of a greater problem – the belief that we as humans have evolved beyond nature and to be better than nature. We haven’t.

That belief that we are above and beyond nature is at the centre of many false belief systems and resultant dysfunctional societal structures.

But I digress – yes I agree with the It4Change raising of transboundary issues as a gap in current internet governance structures and your responses here. I think IGC should adopt something similar.

Ian Peter


________________________________
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:02:17 +0530
To: Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs



On Friday 03 December 2010 11:47 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs Hi Parminder, I have to pick up on this

> So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the jungle?

Except for the resultant pollution of the oceans – well, yes!

As an ecologist I am aware that jungles are far better behaved and structured for co-operation than nation states. Jungle creatures are aware of their inter dependencies and act to protect each others existence.  A nice balance between different and complementary life forms which enhance each other and could teach us a lot about enhanced co=operation.

I could go on at length here, but please, leave the jungles out of this if you are looking for an analogy for some worse state of existence than nation states. I am not sure that there is one to be honest, given the history of silly wars , non democratic feudal behaviour, and intolerance, but if there is a worse state it is certainly not the jungle!


Ian,

Probably I should not say anything in response to your well-intentions ecological musings :), which of course have been said by putting your political hat aside.

However i did not invent the phrase 'law of the jungle' nor originally ascribe to it the meaning in which it is used which is things like 'might is right' and 'survival of the fittest'. Darwinism may be a natural fact, but Darwinism applied to society is not the kind of thing we want to live by, right.

Parminder

Ian Peter


________________________________
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
 Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
 Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:34:11 +0530
 To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
 Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs



On Friday 03 December 2010 11:21 AM, McTim wrote:


On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 8:12 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:





If you do not want them to misuse their sovereignty claims, especially vis a
vis matters that are are increasingly of global implication, then you need
to have alternative globally democratic power





I'm with Avri, to think that gov'ts won't claim sovereignty and act
unilaterally is idealistic at best.



So?? We shd throw all governments into the sea and live by the law of the jungle?

BTW, I did mention that in the areas under the ambit of WTO and WIPO, governments, largely, are unable to act unilaterally.

About being 'idealistic', well, i dont know what is more idealistic than to think that everything can self govern itself to the best satisfaction of all, the kind of thinking that underlies your contributions to most political discussions here.

Parminder




Unless your data is on a server in SeaLand
(http://www.sealandgov.org/) or someplace like it, some gov't will be
asserting authority of some kind.





________________________________
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 iza at anr.org  Fri Dec  3 10:09:36 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 00:09:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] CoE
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <F4586561-B021-4206-BE0A-2D5C75D502BE@acm.org>
 <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=p0RRSjCYHo3zqYAuvnfEwDTX5mEsgea4UckL4@mail.gmail.com>

Hi,

While original OECD member countries are "high developed industrial
nations" of the
West, it is not entirely true now. They have been expanding its
membership and activities.

Of course, major works are still sort of "controlled" by rich
industrial countries, just
pointing that out may not be much productive.

I had similar image about OECD as "the Club of rich Western countries", they
are trying to shift that. Yes, the procedure to join OECD is not explicitly
mentioned, and most meetings are "closed" and working documents are
kept only among member,  thus it is still rather closed, I agree.

From OECD website:

The 33 member countries of OECD are:
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece,  Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israël,
Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg,  Mexico, the Netherlands, New
Zealand,  Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Twenty of these countries became members on 14 December 1960, when the
Convention establishing the organisation was signed. The others have
joined over the years.

In a Supplementary Protocol to the OECD Convention, the signatory
states decided that the Commission of the European Community “shall
participate in the work” of the Organisation. This participation goes
well beyond that of a mere observer, and in fact gives the Commission
quasi-Member status.

In May 2007, OECD countries agreed to invite Chile, Estonia, Israel,
Russia and Slovenia to open discussions for membership of the
Organisation and offered enhanced engagement to Brazil, China, India,
Indonesia and South Africa. The approval of so-called "road maps" in
December 2007 marked the start of accession talks with Chile, Estonia,
Israel, Russia and Slovenia.

http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html

Just FYI.

izumi


2010/12/3 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
> Dear Parminder
>
> you always put COE and OECD in the same basket. This is noty correct. OECD has only high developed industrial nations as members, the CEO has a number of developing nations among its members.
>
> Furthermore would you accept if I invite you to serve as an external consultant for the planned CEO project on cross border Internet? I would like to see your concrete comments on the proposed "Framework of Committments" (FoC) - which will be probably a declaration of principles - and the planned recommendation on rights, duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet.
>
> 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 avri at acm.org  Fri Dec  3 13:06:05 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:06:05 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <F4586561-B021-4206-BE0A-2D5C75D502BE@acm.org> <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <4F15E2CD-A856-401C-9ED0-5C0AC8468F2A@acm.org>

hi,

Nothing supercilious about it.  And please do not accuse me of things.  I apologize if one liners are a problem but I tend to think in brief sentences.  Might be a deficiency of mine.  And I see no way my comment, any comments I made, stopping you or anyone else from having a discussion.

When I mentioned repeat ..., I meant that I would like to have all of my previous comments on the this topic entered back into the record for this round of the discussion.

e.g. especially the ones relating to not only focusing on just some of regional organizations but recommending that people put in the same effort that people put into COE to make if a viable regional organization for representing their regions intersts and for presenting solution paths others could discuss.


a.

On 3 Dec 2010, at 06:17, parminder wrote:

> 
> 
> On Friday 03 December 2010 03:54 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> and we have come full circle.
>> 
>> repeat ...
>> 
>> a.
>>   
>> 
> 
> Avri, can you please allow people to discuss what they want to discuss on this list and keep your supercilious one liners out of it. They are rather irritating, thats all. Thanks. parminder 
> 
> ( Also request the co-coordinators to look into this.... this is like, two people discussing something, and someone comes in with a line ' there you go again....'. Irritating and irrelevant, isnt it.)
> 
> 
>> On 3 Dec 2010, at 05:16, parminder wrote:
>> 
>>   
>> 
>>> 
>>> On Friday 03 December 2010 03:30 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>     
>>> 
>>>> In message <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter at ianpeter.com>, at 16:36:38 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>>>  writes 
>>>>       
>>>> 
>>>>> Number one on my list here would be issues of transboundary jurisdiction. They are not handled well ? IGC has run workshops on this at the last few IGFs. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Further work needs to be done here.  I could list a few of the past anomalies but I think  most people here are aware of them. It?s a mess, and the country or a company resident in any country of the registrant, the registry, the registrar or the hosting organisation could all get involved in legal action against a site that offends the nation state of any of these. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The process to be pursued to sort this out starts with the adoption of some universal principles IMHO. 
>>>>>         
>>>>> 
>>>> Which is exactly what things like the CoE's Budapest Convention, or several of the OECD's initiatives are all about. 
>>>> 
>>>> But they don't get much approval from folks around here, from what I can see. 
>>>>       
>>>> 
>>> Dear Roland, 
>>> 
>>> At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and global democracy count for anything? 
>>> 
>>> On the other hand, the question I have asked so many times, that why should not initiatives similar to those that you mention, but where all countries are represented, 'get much approval from folks around here' remains unanswered. Can you try an answer to it.
>>> 
>>> This is exactly what is sought in IT for Change's submission for consultations on enhanced cooperation. 
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Parminder 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> 
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     
>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>>     
>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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 tina.dam at icann.org  Fri Dec  3 20:42:34 2010
From: tina.dam at icann.org (Tina Dam)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 17:42:34 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
	<AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
	<1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>
 <AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Hi All, I'm stepping into this conversation a bit late perhaps, but have been out of Internet connectivity the last few days.

In any event, I hope some general information will help the discussion. The Fast Track Process is a limited process set up for the initial implementations of IDN ccTLDs. It was a factor in the community development of the process that there should be no reconsideration process included specific to the Fast Track process because it was a limited approach to only those requests where no dispute, questions, or otherwise concerns existed.

Now, the process is a year old, and hence we are conducting a review of how well it functions and if any changes should be made. There is a public forum online and also a session scheduled in Cartagena. We will discuss all aspects of the process there - see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22oct10-en.htm 

On the specific requests from Bulgaria, as discussed in these emails, part of the Fast Track process prevents me from discussing that specifically, as staff is not allowed to discuss such details publicly. I hope most applicants will appreciate that fact.

Finally, to note that a long-term policy for IDN ccTLDs (i.e. not the limited initial and more careful approach) is under development in the ccNSO.

Tina


Tina Dam
Senior Director IDNs

Mobile: +1-310-862-2026
Voice: +1-310-301-5838
ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292







> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Petko Kolev
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:56 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson
> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg)
> similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important:
> 
> http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from today)
> 
> Yours,
> Petko
> 
> Bulgarian IT Users Group
> 
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
> > In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of
> domain
> > names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting and
> other
> > forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well
> before
> > IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda.
> >
> > The solution, also an old one, is website certification which helps a
> domain
> > name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the right
> people.
> >  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser
> enhancements
> > which make friendly use of that information, is all part of ensuring
> that
> > users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name
> confusion.
> >
> > With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be more
> > widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view
> [sic] that
> > new TLDs actually have some value in their own right...
> >
> > Speaking for myself only.
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)"
> <pouzin at well.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly
> >> legitimate cyrillic cctld.
> >>
> >> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their
> >> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already
> >> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from б,
> or 3
> >> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _
> > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC
>  <dg at apnic.net>
> > http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858
> 3100
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 jeremy at ciroap.org  Fri Dec  3 21:42:43 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 10:42:43 +0800
Subject: [governance] Our representation at the Enhanced Cooperation
 consultation
In-Reply-To: <RRXfgA+M7L+MFAZ4@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904@ciroap.org> <RRXfgA+M7L+MFAZ4@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <641B77C5-73FD-4A1F-89E1-27CCE93C1855@ciroap.org>

On 03/12/2010, at 5:56 PM, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <8671340A-95A6-4160-9E16-6327BAC42904 at ciroap.org>, at 08:02:37 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> writes
> 
>> Anyone else who would like to attend is very welcome to do so.  It is to be held in Conference Room 2-North Lawn Building, United Nations, (entrance at 46th Street and First Avenue, New York, NY 10017), from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
> 
> Is there any pre-registration/badging requirement?

Yes a day pass can be obtained at the desk that will be set up from 9:00 a.m. at the lobby of
the General Assembly (visitors' area).  You should notify your intention to attend to doylee at un.org.  You should not encounter any resistance because of not being a WSIS-accredited entity, but you do, let us know and we will have words.

-- 
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.

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

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 Dec  3 23:45:26 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:15:26 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: CoE
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <F4586561-B021-4206-BE0A-2D5C75D502BE@acm.org> <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net>  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4CF9C766.3020409@itforchange.net>



On Friday 03 December 2010 07:36 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
> Dear Parminder
>
> you always put COE and OECD in the same basket. This is noty correct. OECD has only high developed industrial nations as members, the CEO has a number of developing nations among its members.
>    

Dear Wolfgang

I agree that in a way this is not correct. OECD membership is based on 
economic strength creteria, while CoE's is on a geo-political logic. CoE 
certainly has a right to work as a political unit, to the extent it can, 
and make policies for its members. I do have a lot of respect for all 
the great work CoE has done, and hope one day our region will have the 
benefit of such an organisation.

Also agreed that CoE does have a very few members that can be called 
developing countries.

However, I put OECD and CoE in the same basket only when, and to the 
extent that, these groups seek to work (exclusively, as I will argue 
later) on policy issues that can seen as essentially global in their 
implication, develop policies in these areas and then expect other 
countries to then cede to these policies.

This is especially indefensible when these groups - or their member 
countries - seem less than enthusiastic about any truely global 
initiative to address the same policy issues. In fact, the members of 
these groups are often seen as actively blocking institutional 
development at the global level that could possibly, in the future, 
address these policy issues ('enhanced cooperation' process being a case 
in point). (They opposed setting up an separate 'commission on 
information society' as a new WSIS follow up body during WSIS, and, at 
that time, even did not want IGF as a policy related body and tried 
quite a lot to keep it only as a capacity building body.)

BTW I must say that I am always impressed with your willingness for 
keeping a dialogue going on all issues, controversial or not. In fact, I 
remember you sought a discussion with me on the CoE issue on the 25th 
when we met in Geneva which unfortunately we could not do at that time.
> Furthermore would you accept if I invite you to serve as an external consultant for the planned CEO project on cross border Internet? I would like to see your concrete comments on the proposed "Framework of Committments" (FoC) - which will be probably a declaration of principles - and the planned recommendation on rights, duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet.
>
>    

Thank you very much for this kind offer, which, since I know you, I know 
is genuine. However, I of course cannot accept it given my above views. 
Though getting someone who could contribute about Internet governance 
from a global democracy and interests of marginalised people/ groups/ 
countries point of view is not  a bad idea at all. There are many who 
can fit the bill.

Meanwhile, we have seeking some such global declaration of principles 
since the WSIS days and have made many contributions, which I will be 
happy to re-refer to you. Maybe if I know you are keeping an eye out, we 
can increase the number of contributions we make, and their specificity, 
towards what we think should constitute a global declaration of 
principles :), with, to use your words, recommendations on rights, 
duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet.

BTW, IGC may want to take up your challenge. Come up with what IGC 
thinks shd be a global declaration of principles, and CoE is welcome to 
look at it and take liberally from it.

Thanks again, parminder







>
> Thanks
>
> Wolfgang
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101204/f0fad1fe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  4 00:21:10 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:51:10 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>


On Friday 03 December 2010 07:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3 
> Dec 2010, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>> Dear Roland,
>>
>> At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my
>> approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it
>> again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives.
>> Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and
>> global democracy count for anything?
>
> That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong with 
> the initiatives.

Who decides what is wrong or not? The corresponding question - since I 
asked if democracy counts for anything - is how does lack of democracy 
in a country matter if 'things are working well', whatever it means.


> That's pragmatism rather than paternalism.
like colonialism (or the white man's burden ) was pragmatism, as 
apartheid was pragmatism, as China's throttling of dissent is 
pragmatism........

> We are where we are, 

Yes, sure. If one is structurally well locating, it comes easy to saying 
'we are where we are'..... not to those who are marginalized.

I do wonder what are the limits of political correctness on this list.

For a global civil society group, the lack of enthusiasm for global 
democracy here worries me a lot.

parminder


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101204/6328ffbe/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  4 00:59:56 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 11:29:56 +0530
Subject: [governance] CoE
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=p0RRSjCYHo3zqYAuvnfEwDTX5mEsgea4UckL4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <F4586561-B021-4206-BE0A-2D5C75D502BE@acm.org> <4CF8D1AC.2080203@itforchange.net> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0751A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=p0RRSjCYHo3zqYAuvnfEwDTX5mEsgea4UckL4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF9D8DC.3030902@itforchange.net>



On Friday 03 December 2010 08:39 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While original OECD member countries are "high developed industrial
> nations" of the
> West, it is not entirely true now. They have been expanding its
> membership and activities.
>
> Of course, major works are still sort of "controlled" by rich
> industrial countries, just
> pointing that out may not be much productive.
>    
And why is it, Izumi, any more productive to keep pointing out that UN 
is the worst possible thing to figure in any global governance 
configuration, a task that we here seem to be singularly devoted to. And 
pointing to how it is 'controlled' by developing country govs which have 
about everything wrong about them. Especially when, unlike in case of 
OECD's control by rich countries, this is even not true.  Developed 
countries still wield by far more power at the UN than developing 
countries. It is a testimony to the ease with which civil society in IG 
arena has mostly allowed itself to be manipulated by powerful interests 
that we keep contributing to the impression that the opposite is true.

> I had similar image about OECD as "the Club of rich Western countries", they
> are trying to shift that.
That is what it is, and everyone knows that. You are just being too kind 
to the powerful group. I have not seen anyone seriously think any other 
way  than that it is the 'club of rich countries' (doesnt matter western 
of not, that is not the point)
Window dressings do not count. We need to be kinder to weaker groups not 
the most powerful ones. That is what civil society is supposed to do.


parminder
> Yes, the procedure to join OECD is not explicitly
> mentioned, and most meetings are "closed" and working documents are
> kept only among member,  thus it is still rather closed, I agree.
>
>  From OECD website:
>
> The 33 member countries of OECD are:
> Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark,
> Finland, France, Germany, Greece,  Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israël,
> Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg,  Mexico, the Netherlands, New
> Zealand,  Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain,
> Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.
>
> Twenty of these countries became members on 14 December 1960, when the
> Convention establishing the organisation was signed. The others have
> joined over the years.
>
> In a Supplementary Protocol to the OECD Convention, the signatory
> states decided that the Commission of the European Community “shall
> participate in the work” of the Organisation. This participation goes
> well beyond that of a mere observer, and in fact gives the Commission
> quasi-Member status.
>
> In May 2007, OECD countries agreed to invite Chile, Estonia, Israel,
> Russia and Slovenia to open discussions for membership of the
> Organisation and offered enhanced engagement to Brazil, China, India,
> Indonesia and South Africa. The approval of so-called "road maps" in
> December 2007 marked the start of accession talks with Chile, Estonia,
> Israel, Russia and Slovenia.
>
> http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html
>
> Just FYI.
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2010/12/3 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
>    
>> Dear Parminder
>>
>> you always put COE and OECD in the same basket. This is noty correct. OECD has only high developed industrial nations as members, the CEO has a number of developing nations among its members.
>>
>> Furthermore would you accept if I invite you to serve as an external consultant for the planned CEO project on cross border Internet? I would like to see your concrete comments on the proposed "Framework of Committments" (FoC) - which will be probably a declaration of principles - and the planned recommendation on rights, duties and responsibilities of governments in the cross border Internet.
>>
>> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101204/67535e4b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From petko.kolev49 at gmail.com  Sat Dec  4 03:34:09 2010
From: petko.kolev49 at gmail.com (Petko Kolev)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 10:34:09 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
	<AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
	<1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>
	<AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>
	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=fP5aWj7VxVZ86E5r9Q5cfYtct2mBJrNdZ4pPK@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Tina,

You didn`t respond to my email, so I`m asking you publicly - could you
give me a permission to make public the DNS Stability report of the
rejection of the Bulgarian application? As I told you, by Bulgarian
law its public.

Yours,
Petko

Bulgarian IT Users Group

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Tina Dam <tina.dam at icann.org> wrote:
> Hi All, I'm stepping into this conversation a bit late perhaps, but have been out of Internet connectivity the last few days.
>
> In any event, I hope some general information will help the discussion. The Fast Track Process is a limited process set up for the initial implementations of IDN ccTLDs. It was a factor in the community development of the process that there should be no reconsideration process included specific to the Fast Track process because it was a limited approach to only those requests where no dispute, questions, or otherwise concerns existed.
>
> Now, the process is a year old, and hence we are conducting a review of how well it functions and if any changes should be made. There is a public forum online and also a session scheduled in Cartagena. We will discuss all aspects of the process there - see: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22oct10-en.htm
>
> On the specific requests from Bulgaria, as discussed in these emails, part of the Fast Track process prevents me from discussing that specifically, as staff is not allowed to discuss such details publicly. I hope most applicants will appreciate that fact.
>
> Finally, to note that a long-term policy for IDN ccTLDs (i.e. not the limited initial and more careful approach) is under development in the ccNSO.
>
> Tina
>
>
> Tina Dam
> Senior Director IDNs
>
> Mobile: +1-310-862-2026
> Voice: +1-310-301-5838
> ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
>> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Petko Kolev
>> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:56 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg)
>> similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important:
>>
>> http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from today)
>>
>> Yours,
>> Petko
>>
>> Bulgarian IT Users Group
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>> > In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of
>> domain
>> > names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting and
>> other
>> > forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well
>> before
>> > IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda.
>> >
>> > The solution, also an old one, is website certification which helps a
>> domain
>> > name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the right
>> people.
>> >  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser
>> enhancements
>> > which make friendly use of that information, is all part of ensuring
>> that
>> > users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name
>> confusion.
>> >
>> > With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be more
>> > widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view
>> [sic] that
>> > new TLDs actually have some value in their own right...
>> >
>> > Speaking for myself only.
>> >
>> > Paul.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)"
>> <pouzin at well.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly
>> >> legitimate cyrillic cctld.
>> >>
>> >> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their
>> >> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are already
>> >> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from б,
>> or 3
>> >> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________________________________
>> _
>> > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC
>>  <dg at apnic.net>
>> > http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858
>> 3100
>> >
>> > ____________________________________________________________
>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 tina.dam at icann.org  Sat Dec  4 05:00:55 2010
From: tina.dam at icann.org (Tina Dam)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 02:00:55 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=fP5aWj7VxVZ86E5r9Q5cfYtct2mBJrNdZ4pPK@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
	<AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
	<1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>
	<AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>
	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
 <AANLkTi=fP5aWj7VxVZ86E5r9Q5cfYtct2mBJrNdZ4pPK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Hi Petko, I am sorry if I have missed an email from you - it may have been due to my vacation the last couple of days (am still catching up).

It is not an ICANN decision to make anything about an IDN ccTLD application public. Contrary, according to the process, we need to keep it confidential. So this will be a decision by the applicant.

Tina


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Petko Kolev [mailto:petko.kolev49 at gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:34 AM
> To: Tina Dam
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg)
> similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
> 
> Hi Tina,
> 
> You didn`t respond to my email, so I`m asking you publicly - could you
> give me a permission to make public the DNS Stability report of the
> rejection of the Bulgarian application? As I told you, by Bulgarian
> law its public.
> 
> Yours,
> Petko
> 
> Bulgarian IT Users Group
> 
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Tina Dam <tina.dam at icann.org> wrote:
> > Hi All, I'm stepping into this conversation a bit late perhaps, but
> have been out of Internet connectivity the last few days.
> >
> > In any event, I hope some general information will help the
> discussion. The Fast Track Process is a limited process set up for the
> initial implementations of IDN ccTLDs. It was a factor in the community
> development of the process that there should be no reconsideration
> process included specific to the Fast Track process because it was a
> limited approach to only those requests where no dispute, questions, or
> otherwise concerns existed.
> >
> > Now, the process is a year old, and hence we are conducting a review
> of how well it functions and if any changes should be made. There is a
> public forum online and also a session scheduled in Cartagena. We will
> discuss all aspects of the process there - see:
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22oct10-en.htm
> >
> > On the specific requests from Bulgaria, as discussed in these emails,
> part of the Fast Track process prevents me from discussing that
> specifically, as staff is not allowed to discuss such details publicly.
> I hope most applicants will appreciate that fact.
> >
> > Finally, to note that a long-term policy for IDN ccTLDs (i.e. not the
> limited initial and more careful approach) is under development in the
> ccNSO.
> >
> > Tina
> >
> >
> > Tina Dam
> > Senior Director IDNs
> >
> > Mobile: +1-310-862-2026
> > Voice: +1-310-301-5838
> > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> >> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Petko Kolev
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:56 AM
> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson
> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg)
> >> similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important:
> >>
> >> http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from
> today)
> >>
> >> Yours,
> >> Petko
> >>
> >> Bulgarian IT Users Group
> >>
> >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
> wrote:
> >> > In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of
> >> domain
> >> > names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting
> and
> >> other
> >> > forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well
> >> before
> >> > IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda.
> >> >
> >> > The solution, also an old one, is website certification which
> helps a
> >> domain
> >> > name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the
> right
> >> people.
> >> >  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser
> >> enhancements
> >> > which make friendly use of that information, is all part of
> ensuring
> >> that
> >> > users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name
> >> confusion.
> >> >
> >> > With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be
> more
> >> > widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view
> >> [sic] that
> >> > new TLDs actually have some value in their own right...
> >> >
> >> > Speaking for myself only.
> >> >
> >> > Paul.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)"
> >> <pouzin at well.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly
> >> >> legitimate cyrillic cctld.
> >> >>
> >> >> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their
> >> >> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are
> already
> >> >> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from
> б,
> >> or 3
> >> >> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> >> _
> >> > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC
> >>  <dg at apnic.net>
> >> > http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7
> 3858
> >> 3100
> >> >
> >> > ____________________________________________________________
> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 mail at edmon.asia  Sat Dec  4 07:45:18 2010
From: mail at edmon.asia (Edmon)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 20:45:18 +0800
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>	<AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>	<1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>	<AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <AANLkTi=fP5aWj7VxVZ86E5r9Q5cfYtct2mBJrNdZ4pPK@mail.gmail.com> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
Message-ID: <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia>

Hi Tina,
You mean this is not ICANN staff decision?... the requirement for confidentiality that you mentioned was a process based on the IDNC report developed by the ICANN community and the implementation plan thereupon developed by ICANN staff...
I do remember discussing precisely this issue at the IDNC (Fast Track) WG and the policy (for confidentiality) eventually set was influenced strongly by participants from the ccNSO and GAC communities.  It was an ICANN decision in some way to not have the information public...

Not meaning to nit-pick on Tina's words (ICANN staff/community), but trying to illustrate a point for why we want more participation earlier on in ICANN policy development/decision processes :-)

Very much agree with Paul's earlier point about it being more widespread for and having implications on new gTLDs (including IDN gTLDs)... so this is definitely an issue worth following through... now.  Also, since the Fast Track is an ongoing process and is under review, it is not untimely to bring it up I think...

Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Tina Dam
> Sent: Saturday, December 4, 2010 6:01 PM
> To: Petko Kolev
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin
> ccTLDs?
> 
> Hi Petko, I am sorry if I have missed an email from you - it may have been due to my
> vacation the last couple of days (am still catching up).
> 
> It is not an ICANN decision to make anything about an IDN ccTLD application
> public. Contrary, according to the process, we need to keep it confidential. So this
> will be a decision by the applicant.
> 
> Tina
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Petko Kolev [mailto:petko.kolev49 at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 12:34 AM
> > To: Tina Dam
> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg)
> > similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
> >
> > Hi Tina,
> >
> > You didn`t respond to my email, so I`m asking you publicly - could you
> > give me a permission to make public the DNS Stability report of the
> > rejection of the Bulgarian application? As I told you, by Bulgarian
> > law its public.
> >
> > Yours,
> > Petko
> >
> > Bulgarian IT Users Group
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 3:42 AM, Tina Dam <tina.dam at icann.org> wrote:
> > > Hi All, I'm stepping into this conversation a bit late perhaps, but
> > have been out of Internet connectivity the last few days.
> > >
> > > In any event, I hope some general information will help the
> > discussion. The Fast Track Process is a limited process set up for the
> > initial implementations of IDN ccTLDs. It was a factor in the community
> > development of the process that there should be no reconsideration
> > process included specific to the Fast Track process because it was a
> > limited approach to only those requests where no dispute, questions, or
> > otherwise concerns existed.
> > >
> > > Now, the process is a year old, and hence we are conducting a review
> > of how well it functions and if any changes should be made. There is a
> > public forum online and also a session scheduled in Cartagena. We will
> > discuss all aspects of the process there - see:
> > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22oct10-en.htm
> > >
> > > On the specific requests from Bulgaria, as discussed in these emails,
> > part of the Fast Track process prevents me from discussing that
> > specifically, as staff is not allowed to discuss such details publicly.
> > I hope most applicants will appreciate that fact.
> > >
> > > Finally, to note that a long-term policy for IDN ccTLDs (i.e. not the
> > limited initial and more careful approach) is under development in the
> > ccNSO.
> > >
> > > Tina
> > >
> > >
> > > Tina Dam
> > > Senior Director IDNs
> > >
> > > Mobile: +1-310-862-2026
> > > Voice: +1-310-301-5838
> > > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> > >> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Petko Kolev
> > >> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 6:56 AM
> > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Paul Wilson
> > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg)
> > >> similar to other Latin ccTLDs?
> > >>
> > >> Dear All,
> > >>
> > >> I wish to add this to the discussion - think its important:
> > >>
> > >> http://domainincite.com/bulgarians-step-up-icann-protest/ (from
> > today)
> > >>
> > >> Yours,
> > >> Petko
> > >>
> > >> Bulgarian IT Users Group
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:07 AM, Paul Wilson <pwilson at apnic.net>
> > wrote:
> > >> > In this whole discussion it is worth remembering that confusion of
> > >> domain
> > >> > names is as old as the DNS itself, and has driven typo-squatting
> > and
> > >> other
> > >> > forms of "confusingly similar" domain name registration since well
> > >> before
> > >> > IDNs and new TLDs were on the public agenda.
> > >> >
> > >> > The solution, also an old one, is website certification which
> > helps a
> > >> domain
> > >> > name user trust that a given website/domainname is run by the
> > right
> > >> people.
> > >> >  The use of "extended validation certificates", and browser
> > >> enhancements
> > >> > which make friendly use of that information, is all part of
> > ensuring
> > >> that
> > >> > users are safe(r) from the sort of fraud which relies on name
> > >> confusion.
> > >> >
> > >> > With new gTLDs and IDN, the problem is no different; it will be
> > more
> > >> > widespread, but that can be weighed against a fairly popular view
> > >> [sic] that
> > >> > new TLDs actually have some value in their own right...
> > >> >
> > >> > Speaking for myself only.
> > >> >
> > >> > Paul.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --On 1 December 2010 11:47:14 AM +0100 "Pouzin (well)"
> > >> <pouzin at well.com>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> In my organization (EUROLINC), we believe that .бг is a perfectly
> > >> >> legitimate cyrillic cctld.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> ICANN position is just a cat and mouse game for asserting their
> > >> >> illegitimate "power". More than a dozen pure latin cctld are
> > already
> > >> >> totally confusing by their own rules. If they can't tell b from
> > б,
> > >> or 3
> > >> >> from 8, they should get better glasses or font sets.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> >
> __________________________________________________________________
> _____
> > >> _
> > >> > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC
> > >>  <dg at apnic.net>
> > >> > http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7
> > 3858
> > >> 3100
> > >> >
> > >> > ____________________________________________________________
> > >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> > >> >    governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> > >> >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ceo at bnnrc.net  Sat Dec  4 07:58:05 2010
From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 18:58:05 +0600
Subject: [governance] Focus. Info: Bangladesh Conference: February 24-25,
 2010, Dhaka Bangladesh - Deadline to apply: 6 December 2010 at 12 GMT
 (+1:00)
Message-ID: <A6A23B96B7BA4583B9545ED355C9C5BF@CEO>


Focus. Info: Bangladesh Conference
February 24-25, 2010, Dhaka Bangladesh 

Deadline to apply: 6 December 2010 at 12 GMT (+1:00)

 

Networks are a very effective way to access research information and knowledge, a fundamental human right that strengthens democracy. Getting access to information also requires technical skills and abilities to use the latest information sharing and collaboration tools. Only then we can create cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural and cross-border networks in which the exchange of research information and knowledge improves.

 

The Bangladesh Conference aims at helping institutes in Bangladesh and surrounding countries to develop effective research infrastructures by strengthening information skills of a target group of 60 students, researchers, policy-makers and individual practitioners in the field of global development studies and research.

 

Through hands-on exercises the participants will be introduced to tools to present themselves, to find experts, to share knowledge and to work together. To promote sustainability of the event, participants will have time to plan how they will take forward the new lessons learnt.

 

The Bangladesh Conference also aims at establishing a group of local experts who will continue the work of the conference: promoting the latest information sharing and collaboration tools among students, researchers, policy-makers and individual practitioners in global development research and studies. This continuation is made possible, because the Focuss.Info Initiative (www.focuss.info) is sponsoring peers in the Africa, Asia and South America by awarding grants. With these grants, local experts get the possibility to organise their own workshops on the new information sharing and collaboration tools, technologies and concepts.

 

Program

You can download the complete programme here: Programme Bangladesh Conference

Tickets It is very simple to apply to the Bangladesh Conference. Get your free ticket by carefully filling out the application form in the left-hand column. The coordinators of this Conference from Bangladesh, Denmark and the Netherlands will then select 60 people who will be a part of this conference. 



Deadline to apply: 6 December 2010 at 12 GMT (+1:00) http://www.focuss.info/bangladesh/

 

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101204/b05500b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Focus Info Schudule.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 228296 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101204/b05500b0/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jlfullsack at orange.fr  Sat Dec  4 12:51:34 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Sat,  4 Dec 2010 09:51:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <7365152.32374.1291485065254.JavaMail.www@wwinf2205>




Parminder wrote :

Message du 04/12/10 06:21
> De : "parminder" 
> A : "governance at lists.cpsr.org" , "Roland Perry" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
> 
> 
> On Friday 03 December 2010 07:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote: In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3 Dec 2010, parminder writes 
> Dear Roland, 
> 
> At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my 
> approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me say it 
> again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD initiatives. 
> Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and 
> global democracy count for anything? 
> 
> That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong with the initiatives. 
> Who decides what is wrong or not? The corresponding question - since I asked if democracy counts for anything - is how does lack of democracy in a country matter if 'things are working well', whatever it means.
> 
> 
> That's pragmatism rather than paternalism. like colonialism (or the white man's burden ) was pragmatism, as apartheid was pragmatism, as China's throttling of dissent is pragmatism........
> 
> We are where we are, 
> Yes, sure. If one is structurally well locating, it comes easy to saying 'we are where we are'..... not to those who are marginalized. 
> 
> I do wonder what are the limits of political correctness on this list. 
> 
> For a global civil society group, the lack of enthusiasm for global democracy here worries me a lot. 
> 
> parminder 
> 
> 
> 
>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101204/9a07e012/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From vb at bertola.eu  Sat Dec  4 14:50:00 2010
From: vb at bertola.eu (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 20:50:00 +0100
Subject: [governance] WikiLeaks website pulled by Amazon after US
 homeland
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinAyDYJd5EhXssuRahBAihbzxiK9qwmsVR+wew_@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF71766.8060501@ITforChange.net> <AANLkTi=_auVowRCCM5AbrZhPan3b05yAZSy34argt3Cq@mail.gmail.com> <4CF748C2.7090901@ITforChange.net> <AANLkTinAyDYJd5EhXssuRahBAihbzxiK9qwmsVR+wew_@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CFA9B68.50303@bertola.eu>

Il 02/12/10 09:37, McTim ha scritto:
> My point is that if your org has sensitive (or not) information, do
> you not have an interest in having it not released to the public?
> Would you not be a tad upset if all of your emails for example were
> put online by a hacker?  I think you might.

You're free to see it as you like - in the meantime, I have changed my 
mind about making orders on Amazon, even if it provides the best price 
and service, and placed my Christmas order with another vendor. Judging 
from what I see on social networks and blogs, I'm definitely not the 
only one.
I don't want to give my money to a service provider which happily bows 
to governmental pressure and censors websites for political reasons.
Regards,
-- 
vb.                   Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu   <--------
-------->        now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/   <--------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  4 14:54:57 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <C1183E36-686D-4844-B256-901978F85E74@me.com>
References: <AANLkTik+zZ=a2noBrW+Nxmen3_QP5RJUjFj8GDmyWnTb@mail.gmail.com>,<C1183E36-686D-4844-B256-901978F85E74@me.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of service, below.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sam™ <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
To: Dave Farber IP <dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?

This may be of interest to the list.

Sam™
https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns-everydns

WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net> says attack against leaks site endangered other
customers' service – effectively pushing site off the web
Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT

WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org> address. Photograph: Joe
Raedle/Getty Images
The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.

The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.

Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
them.

On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain, WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.

Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
"privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
problem."

"These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.

The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.

The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
a new domain name – wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss suffix. However, the
new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.

The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch> domain name, which only surfaced on Friday morning,
is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
still being done by everydns.

Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
relationship with the website."

Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."

Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.

A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain – wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de> – also
appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
web services director, this morning launched Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk> – a
"joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.

In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net> service said that
the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
– who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net – meant that the leaks
site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
Thursday).

DNS services translate a website name, such as guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
machine-readable "IP quads" – in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
site is only reachable via IP address – but WikiLeaks has not yet
provided one via Twitter or other means.

Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net> said that the attacks – which have been going on all
week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service – "threaten the stability
of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net> infrastructure, which enables access to almost
500,000 other websites".

WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org> website has resulted from its
failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."

The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
of thousands of US diplomatic cables.

US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
the data – and who has influenced at least one other US company to
withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.

In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".

Amazon said:

"[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content…
that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."

It noted that:

"When companies or people go about securing and storing large
quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."

But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq.

Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
further donations to "keep us strong".

Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>     [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] <http://www.listbox.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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Dec  4 15:24:18 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 07:24:18 +1100
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C920EEA2.141DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
Liebermann....




> From: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> 
> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
> service, below.
> 
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Sam <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
> To: Dave Farber IP <dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> 
> This may be of interest to the list.
> 
> Sam
> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns
> -everydns
> 
> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net> says attack against leaks site endangered
> other
> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
> 
> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org> address.
> Photograph: Joe
> Raedle/Getty Images
> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
> 
> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
> 
> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
> them.
> 
> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
> 
> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
> problem."
> 
> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
> 
> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
> 
> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss suffix.
> However, the
> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
> 
> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch> domain name, which only surfaced on
> Friday morning,
> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
> still being done by everydns.
> 
> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
> relationship with the website."
> 
> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
> 
> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
> 
> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de> ­ also
> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
> web services director, this morning launched
> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk> ­ a
> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
> 
> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
> service said that
> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
> Thursday).
> 
> DNS services translate a website name, such as
> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
> provided one via Twitter or other means.
> 
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net> said that the attacks ­ which have been
> going on all
> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net> infrastructure, which enables access
> to almost
> 500,000 other websites".
> 
> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org> website has
> resulted from its
> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
> 
> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
> 
> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
> 
> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
> 
> Amazon said:
> 
> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
> 
> It noted that:
> 
> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
> 
> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
> Iraq.
> 
> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
> further donations to "keep us strong".
> 
> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86e
> d04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e
> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
> <http://www.listbox.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


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

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  Sat Dec  4 15:35:35 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <C920EEA2.141DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C920EEA2.141DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4CFAA617.40500@cafonso.ca>

Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like 
to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between 
Lieberman and Bezos :)

--c.a.

On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
> Liebermann....
>
>
>
>
>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
>> service, below.
>>
>> Lee
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>> To: ip
>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Sam�<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> This may be of interest to the list.
>>
>> Sam�
>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns
>> -everydns
>>
>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site endangered
>> other
>> customers' service � effectively pushing site off the web
>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>>
>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  address.
>> Photograph: Joe
>> Raedle/Getty Images
>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>>
>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>>
>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>> them.
>>
>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>>
>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>> problem."
>>
>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>>
>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>>
>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>> a new domain name � wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss suffix.
>> However, the
>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>>
>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
>> Friday morning,
>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>> still being done by everydns.
>>
>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>> relationship with the website."
>>
>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>>
>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>>
>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain �
>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  � also
>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>> web services director, this morning launched
>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  � a
>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>>
>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>> service said that
>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>> � who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net � meant that the leaks
>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>> Thursday).
>>
>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>> machine-readable "IP quads" � in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>> site is only reachable via IP address � but WikiLeaks has not yet
>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>>
>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks � which have been
>> going on all
>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service � "threaten the stability
>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables access
>> to almost
>> 500,000 other websites".
>>
>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  website has
>> resulted from its
>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>>
>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>>
>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>> the data � and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>>
>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>>
>> Amazon said:
>>
>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content�
>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>>
>> It noted that:
>>
>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>>
>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>> Iraq.
>>
>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>>
>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86e
>> d04cc>  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e
>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>> <http://www.listbox.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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Sat Dec  4 15:50:15 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 07:50:15 +1100
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <4CFAA617.40500@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.

In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
age. 

This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
enquiries. 

.

Ian Peter




> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> 
> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
> Lieberman and Bezos :)
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
>> Liebermann....
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>> 
>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
>>> service, below.
>>> 
>>> Lee
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>>> To: ip
>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>> 
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>> 
>>> From: Sam<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>> 
>>> This may be of interest to the list.
>>> 
>>> Sam
>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d
>>> ns
>>> -everydns
>>> 
>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site endangered
>>> other
>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>>> 
>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  address.
>>> Photograph: Joe
>>> Raedle/Getty Images
>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>>> 
>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>>> 
>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>>> them.
>>> 
>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>>> 
>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>>> problem."
>>> 
>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>>> 
>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>>> 
>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
>>> suffix.
>>> However, the
>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>>> 
>>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
>>> Friday morning,
>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>>> still being done by everydns.
>>> 
>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>>> relationship with the website."
>>> 
>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>>> 
>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>>> 
>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
>>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  ­ also
>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>>> web services director, this morning launched
>>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  ­ a
>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>>> 
>>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>>> service said that
>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>>> Thursday).
>>> 
>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
>>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>>> 
>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks ­ which have been
>>> going on all
>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
>>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables
>>> access
>>> to almost
>>> 500,000 other websites".
>>> 
>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  website has
>>> resulted from its
>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>>> 
>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>>> 
>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>>> 
>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>>> 
>>> Amazon said:
>>> 
>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>>> 
>>> It noted that:
>>> 
>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>>> 
>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>>> Iraq.
>>> 
>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>>> 
>>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-8
>>> 6e
>>> d04cc>  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>>> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115
>>> -e
>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>>> <http://www.listbox.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
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Sat Dec  4 16:08:32 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 16:08:32 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <4CFAA617.40500@cafonso.ca>
References: <C920EEA2.141DD%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>,<4CFAA617.40500@cafonso.ca>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDD@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

While I don't doubt many governments are....upset...a little bit : ) with Wikileaks, don;t make the opposite mistake and believe Joe Lieberman's fairy tale/press releases that this is all about him.  

Bezos has been playing chicken with US Treasury over paying taxes since he founded the company, I personally don;t doubt Amazon is a bit harder to intimiidate than some of you all...believe.  

Lee


________________________________________
From: Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 3:35 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter
Cc: Lee W McKnight
Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?

Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
Lieberman and Bezos :)

--c.a.

On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
> Liebermann....
>
>
>
>
>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
>> service, below.
>>
>> Lee
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>> To: ip
>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Sam�<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> This may be of interest to the list.
>>
>> Sam�
>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-dns
>> -everydns
>>
>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site endangered
>> other
>> customers' service � effectively pushing site off the web
>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>>
>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  address.
>> Photograph: Joe
>> Raedle/Getty Images
>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>>
>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>>
>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>> them.
>>
>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>>
>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>> problem."
>>
>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>>
>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>>
>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>> a new domain name � wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss suffix.
>> However, the
>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>>
>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
>> Friday morning,
>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>> still being done by everydns.
>>
>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>> relationship with the website."
>>
>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>>
>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>>
>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain �
>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  � also
>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>> web services director, this morning launched
>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  � a
>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>>
>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>> service said that
>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>> � who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net � meant that the leaks
>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>> Thursday).
>>
>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>> machine-readable "IP quads" � in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>> site is only reachable via IP address � but WikiLeaks has not yet
>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>>
>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks � which have been
>> going on all
>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service � "threaten the stability
>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables access
>> to almost
>> 500,000 other websites".
>>
>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  website has
>> resulted from its
>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>>
>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>>
>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>> the data � and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>>
>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>>
>> Amazon said:
>>
>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content�
>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>>
>> It noted that:
>>
>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>>
>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>> Iraq.
>>
>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>>
>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86e
>> d04cc>  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e
>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>> <http://www.listbox.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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Sat Dec  4 17:32:17 2010
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 00:32:17 +0200
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com>

Is there now really a case for ruling the root in the US?

On 2010/12/04 10:50 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
>
> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
> age.
>
> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
> enquiries.
>
> .
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso"<ca at cafonso.ca>
>> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
>> To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Cc: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
>> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
>> Lieberman and Bezos :)
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
>>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
>>> Liebermann....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>>
>>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
>>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
>>>> service, below.
>>>>
>>>> Lee
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>>>> To: ip
>>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> From: Sam<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>>>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>>
>>>> This may be of interest to the list.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d
>>>> ns
>>>> -everydns
>>>>
>>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>   says attack against leaks site endangered
>>>> other
>>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
>>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>>>>
>>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>   address.
>>>> Photograph: Joe
>>>> Raedle/Getty Images
>>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>>>>
>>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>>>>
>>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>>>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>>>>
>>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>>>> problem."
>>>>
>>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>>>>
>>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>>>>
>>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
>>>> suffix.
>>>> However, the
>>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>>>>
>>>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>   domain name, which only surfaced on
>>>> Friday morning,
>>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>>>> still being done by everydns.
>>>>
>>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>>>> relationship with the website."
>>>>
>>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>>>>
>>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>>>>
>>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
>>>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>   ­ also
>>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>>>> web services director, this morning launched
>>>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>   ­ a
>>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>>>>
>>>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>>>> service said that
>>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
>>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>>>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>>>> Thursday).
>>>>
>>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>>>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
>>>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>>>>
>>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>   said that the attacks ­ which have been
>>>> going on all
>>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
>>>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>   infrastructure, which enables
>>>> access
>>>> to almost
>>>> 500,000 other websites".
>>>>
>>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>   website has
>>>> resulted from its
>>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>>>>
>>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>>>>
>>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>>>>
>>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>>>>
>>>> Amazon said:
>>>>
>>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
>>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>>>>
>>>> It noted that:
>>>>
>>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>>>>
>>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>>>> Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>>>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>>>>
>>>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>    |
>>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-8
>>>> 6e
>>>> d04cc>   Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>>>> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115
>>>> -e
>>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>>>> <http://www.listbox.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
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 karl at cavebear.com  Sat Dec  4 17:43:58 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:43:58 -0800
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTik+zZ=a2noBrW+Nxmen3_QP5RJUjFj8GDmyWnTb@mail.gmail.com>,<C1183E36-686D-4844-B256-901978F85E74@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CFAC42E.8000506@cavebear.com>

On 12/04/2010 11:54 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re
> their cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for
> violating terms of service, below.

> Amazon said:

> "[Amazon Web Services] ...terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content…
> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the
> extraordinary volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks
> is publishing could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to
> ensure that they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."

Two points, particularly since I use Amazon's S3 service to store materials:

   1. What evidence does Amazon have that "WikiLeaks doesn't own or 
otherwise control all the rights to this classified content."?  If I 
understand it, the US Gov't is not able to create materials that are 
subject to copyright.  (Is that correct?)

   2. If the material is classified under US law then a better reason 
would be that Amazon being a US company has obligations in that regard. 
(I don't know what obligations are, if any, in light of the NY Times 
case and the Pentagon Papers.)

   3. <three points! -- insert Monty Python reference> I don't 
understand what part of Amazon's Terms of Service require that users, 
such as myself, or Wikileaks, redact documents to minimize possible 
jeopardy to others.  And given that Amazon prices its S3 storage service 
in units of Terrabytes, one has to wonder whether Amazon is requiring 
redaction by clients that have orders upon orders more data on Amazon 
machines than had Wikileaks.

   By-the-way, I have always wondered whether when one leaves Amazon's 
storage cloud whether all copies of the data stored are removed or 
whether it lingers in backups and elsewhere?  (That's one reason why all 
my data on Amazon S3 is pre-encrypted before it is sent there.)

   4. I'm with Vittorio in my desire to reduce my Amazon use.  But I'm 
here with my Kindle, storing my data on S3, and ... well let's just say 
that Amazon is hard to shake off.

	--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 karl at cavebear.com  Sat Dec  4 17:47:17 2010
From: karl at cavebear.com (Karl Auerbach)
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 14:47:17 -0800
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <4CFAC42E.8000506@cavebear.com>
References: <AANLkTik+zZ=a2noBrW+Nxmen3_QP5RJUjFj8GDmyWnTb@mail.gmail.com>,<C1183E36-686D-4844-B256-901978F85E74@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDA@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4CFAC42E.8000506@cavebear.com>
Message-ID: <4CFAC4F5.2010302@cavebear.com>


By-the-way, has anyone scanned the available part of the wikileaks 
documents for references to the IGF, ICANN, and other internet matters 
discussed here?

	--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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sat Dec  4 19:21:30 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 19:21:30 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Unofficial P2P TLD standard?
In-Reply-To: <D2B368BD-93A0-4B11-827D-22D99C8495C5@me.com>
References: <AANLkTi=LmFbBwCigZXc_VdKrSHUi=HiF3cDG2Ctxej40@mail.gmail.com>,<D2B368BD-93A0-4B11-827D-22D99C8495C5@me.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EDF@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Maybe of interest.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 5:59 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Fwd: Unofficial P2P TLD standard?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sam™ <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
Date: December 4, 2010 4:31:14 PM EST
To: Dave Farber IP <dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
Subject: Unofficial P2P TLD standard?

Hi Dave,
This hasn't been covered by any reputable media yet, however with
support from the pro-Wikileaks community and the anti-censorship
community get behind the pro-P2P community, it seems much more likely.
It sounds like system administration will be quite time-consuming,
though, as they will require people to verify new sites.
Sam Waltz


http://torrentfreak.com/bittorrent-based-dns-to-counter-us-domain-seizures-101130/

BitTorrent Based DNS To Counter US Domain Seizures
Written by Ernesto on November 30, 2010

The domain seizures by the United States authorities in recent days
and upcoming legislation that could make similar takeovers even easier
in the future, have inspired a group of enthusiasts to come up with a
new, decentralized and BitTorrent-powered DNS system. This system will
exchange DNS information through peer-to-peer transfers and will work
with a new .p2p domain extension.

In a direct response to the domain seizures by US authorities during
the last few days, a group of established enthusiasts have started
working on a DNS system that can’t be touched by any governmental
institution.

Ironically, considering the seizure of the Torrent-Finder meta-search
engine domain, the new DNS system will be partly powered by
BitTorrent.

In recent months, global anti-piracy efforts have increasingly focused
on seizing domains of allegedly infringing sites. In the United States
the proposed COICA bill is explicitly aimed at increasing the
government’s censorship powers, but seizing a domain name is already
quite easy, as illustrated by ICE and Department of Justice actions
last weekend and earlier this year.

For governments it is apparently quite easy to take over the DNS
entries of domains, not least because several top level domains are
managed by US-based corporations such as VeriSign, who work closely
together with the US Department of Commerce. According to some, this
setup is a threat to the open internet.

To limit the power governments have over domain names, a group of
enthusiasts has started working on a revolutionary system that can not
be influenced by a government institution, or taken down by pulling
the plug on a central server. Instead, it is distributed by the
people, with help from a BitTorrent-based application that people
install on their computer.

According to the project’s website, the goal is to “create an
application that runs as a service and hooks into the hosts DNS system
to catch all requests to the .p2p TLD while passing all other request
cleanly through. Requests for the .p2p TLD will be redirected to a
locally hosted DNS database.”

“By creating a .p2p TLD that is totally decentralized and that does
not rely on ICANN or any ISP’s DNS service, and by having this
application mimic force-encrypted BitTorrent traffic, there will be a
way to start combating DNS level based censoring like the new US
proposals as well as those systems in use in countries around the
world including China and Iran amongst others.”

The Dot-P2P project was literally started a few days ago, but already
the developers are making great progress. It is expected that a beta
version of the client can be released relatively shortly, a team
member assured TorrentFreak.

The project has been embraced by many familiar names in the
P2P-community. Former Pirate Bay spokesman Peter Sunde is among them,
and the people from EZTV have been promoting it as well.

“For me it’s mostly to scare back. To show that if they try anything,
we have weapons of making it harder for them to abuse it. If they then
back down, we win,” Peter Sunde told TorrentFreak in a comment.

Although the initiators of the project are still debating on various
technical issues on how the system should function, it seems that the
administrative part has been thought out. The .p2p domain registration
will be handled by OpenNIC, an alternative community based DNS
network. OpenNIC also maintains the .geek, .free, .null and several
other top level domains.

On the other hand, there are also voices that are for distributed
domain registration, which would keep the system entirely
decentralized.

The domain registrations will be totally free, but registrants will
have to show that they own a similar domain with a different extension
first, to prevent scammers from taking over a brand.

The new P2P-based DNS system will require users to run an application
on their own computer before they can access the domains, but there
are also plans to create a separate root-server (like OpenNIC) as a
complimentary service. It’s worth noting that the DNS changes will
only affect the new .p2p domains, it will not interfere with access to
any other domains.

It will be interesting to see in what direction this project goes and
how widely it will be adopted. There are already talks of getting
Internet Service Providers to accept the .p2p extension as well, but
even if this doesn’t happen the system can always be accessed through
the BitTorrent-powered application and supporting DNS servers.

If anything, this shows that no matter what legislation or legal
actions are taken, technology stays always one step ahead. The more
aggressive law enforcement gets, the more creative and motivated
adopters of the Open Internet will respond.

Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20101204175926:2C1A06A0-FFFA-11DF-A367-6BF3C5F4DBAC>     [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] <http://www.listbox.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Sat Dec  4 22:01:35 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>

Hi All

A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also 
since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet 
related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'

Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that

"There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance 
and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are 
not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what 
institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important 
Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, 
inclusive and fully-participative manner."

Parminder




On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
>
> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
> age.
>
> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
> enquiries.
>
> .
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>    
>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso"<ca at cafonso.ca>
>> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
>> To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Cc: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
>> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
>> Lieberman and Bezos :)
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>      
>>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
>>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
>>> Liebermann....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>>>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>>>> To:"governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>>
>>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
>>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
>>>> service, below.
>>>>
>>>> Lee
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>>>> To: ip
>>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>>
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>>
>>>> From: Sam<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>>>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>>
>>>> This may be of interest to the list.
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d
>>>> ns
>>>> -everydns
>>>>
>>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>   says attack against leaks site endangered
>>>> other
>>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
>>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>>>>
>>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>   address.
>>>> Photograph: Joe
>>>> Raedle/Getty Images
>>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>>>>
>>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>>>>
>>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>>>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>>>>
>>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>>>> problem."
>>>>
>>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>>>>
>>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>>>>
>>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
>>>> suffix.
>>>> However, the
>>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>>>>
>>>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>   domain name, which only surfaced on
>>>> Friday morning,
>>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>>>> still being done by everydns.
>>>>
>>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>>>> relationship with the website."
>>>>
>>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>>>>
>>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>>>>
>>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
>>>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>   ­ also
>>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>>>> web services director, this morning launched
>>>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>   ­ a
>>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>>>>
>>>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>>>> service said that
>>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
>>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>>>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>>>> Thursday).
>>>>
>>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>>>> http://77.91.249.30  will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
>>>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>>>>
>>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>   said that the attacks ­ which have been
>>>> going on all
>>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
>>>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>   infrastructure, which enables
>>>> access
>>>> to almost
>>>> 500,000 other websites".
>>>>
>>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>   website has
>>>> resulted from its
>>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>>>>
>>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>>>>
>>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>>>>
>>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>>>>
>>>> Amazon said:
>>>>
>>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
>>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>>>>
>>>> It noted that:
>>>>
>>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>>>>
>>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>>>> Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>>>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>>>>
>>>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>    |
>>>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-8
>>>> 6e
>>>> d04cc>   Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>>>> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115
>>>> -e
>>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>>>> <http://www.listbox.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
>>>>          
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101205/9df27f5c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  4 22:54:04 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:54:04 +1100
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C921580C.14208%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Yep, what Parminder said.

I believe we should make a generic statement along these lines





From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations

Hi All

A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since
the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related
policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'

Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that

"There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and
Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be
addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional
mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public
policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative
manner."

Parminder 




On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>  
> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
> 
> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
> age. 
> 
> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
> enquiries. 
> 
> .
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
>  
>>  
>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>
>> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> , Ian
>> Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>> 
>> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
>> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
>> Lieberman and Bezos :)
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>     
>>  
>>>  
>>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
>>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
>>> Liebermann....
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> ,
>>>> Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>> 
>>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
>>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms
>>>> of
>>>> service, below.
>>>> 
>>>> Lee
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>>>> To: ip
>>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Sam<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>>>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>> 
>>>> This may be of interest to the list.
>>>> 
>>>> Sam
>>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>>>> 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net->>>>
d
>>>> ns
>>>> -everydns
>>>> 
>>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site
>>>> endangered
>>>> other
>>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
>>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>>>> 
>>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>
>>>> address.
>>>> Photograph: Joe
>>>> Raedle/Getty Images
>>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>>>> 
>>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>>>> 
>>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>>>> them.
>>>> 
>>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>>>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>>>> 
>>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>>>> problem."
>>>> 
>>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>>>> 
>>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>>>> 
>>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
>>>> suffix.
>>>> However, the
>>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>>>> 
>>>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
>>>> Friday morning,
>>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>>>> still being done by everydns.
>>>> 
>>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>>>> relationship with the website."
>>>> 
>>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>>>> 
>>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>>>> 
>>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
>>>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  ­ also
>>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>>>> web services director, this morning launched
>>>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  ­ a
>>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>>>> 
>>>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>>>> service said that
>>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
>>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>>>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>>>> Thursday).
>>>> 
>>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>>>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
>>>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>>>> 
>>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks ­ which have been
>>>> going on all
>>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
>>>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables
>>>> access
>>>> to almost
>>>> 500,000 other websites".
>>>> 
>>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  website has
>>>> resulted from its
>>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>>>> 
>>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>>>> 
>>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>>>> 
>>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>>>> 
>>>> Amazon said:
>>>> 
>>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
>>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>>>> 
>>>> It noted that:
>>>> 
>>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>>>> 
>>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>>>> Iraq.
>>>> 
>>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>>>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>>>> 
>>>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
>>>> 
Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115->>>>
8
>>>> 6e
>>>> d04cc> 
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04
>>>> cc>   Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>>>> 
Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=892311>>>>
5
>>>> -e
>>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e
>>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>>>> <http://www.listbox.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
>>>>         
>>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101205/01bca46b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  5 00:45:07 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 00:45:07 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <C921580C.14208%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>,<C921580C.14208%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

2nd yep for Parminder's statement
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 10:54 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations

Yep, what Parminder said.

I believe we should make a generic statement along these lines




________________________________
From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations

Hi All

A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'

Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that

"There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner."

Parminder




On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:

The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.

In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
age.

This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
enquiries.

.

Ian Peter







From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> , Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?

Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
Lieberman and Bezos :)

--c.a.

On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:



Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
Liebermann....







From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> , Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?

Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
service, below.

Lee
________________________________________
From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?

Begin forwarded message:

From: Sam�<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?

This may be of interest to the list.

Sam�
https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d
ns
-everydns

WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site endangered
other
customers' service � effectively pushing site off the web
Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT

WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  address.
Photograph: Joe
Raedle/Getty Images
The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.

The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.

Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
them.

On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.

Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
"privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
problem."

"These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.

The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.

The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
a new domain name � wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
suffix.
However, the
new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.

The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
Friday morning,
is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
still being done by everydns.

Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
relationship with the website."

Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."

Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.

A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain �
wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  � also
appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
web services director, this morning launched
Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  � a
"joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.

In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
service said that
the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
� who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net � meant that the leaks
site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
Thursday).

DNS services translate a website name, such as
guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
machine-readable "IP quads" � in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
site is only reachable via IP address � but WikiLeaks has not yet
provided one via Twitter or other means.

Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks � which have been
going on all
week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service � "threaten the stability
of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables
access
to almost
500,000 other websites".

WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  website has
resulted from its
failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."

The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
of thousands of US diplomatic cables.

US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
the data � and who has influenced at least one other US company to
withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.

In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".

Amazon said:

"[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content�
that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."

It noted that:

"When companies or people go about securing and storing large
quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."

But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
Iraq.

Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
further donations to "keep us strong".

Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
[https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-8
6e
d04cc> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>   Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115
-e
899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
[https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
<http://www.listbox.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




____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
      governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Dec  5 02:23:42 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 18:23:42 +1100
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <C921892E.14213%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>


Just a couple of thoughts on this -

Should we use trans-jurisdictional rather than trans-border?

Can we add “consistent” to globally democratic etc?

Ian Peter




From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations

Hi All

A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since
the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related
policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'

Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that

"There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and
Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be
addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional
mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public
policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative
manner."

Parminder 




On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>  
> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
> 
> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
> age. 
> 
> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
> enquiries. 
> 
> .
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
>  
>>  
>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>
>> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> , Ian
>> Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>> 
>> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
>> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
>> Lieberman and Bezos :)
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>     
>>  
>>>  
>>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
>>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
>>> Liebermann....
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>       
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> ,
>>>> Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>> 
>>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
>>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms
>>>> of
>>>> service, below.
>>>> 
>>>> Lee
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>>>> To: ip
>>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>> 
>>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>> 
>>>> From: Sam<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>>>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>> 
>>>> This may be of interest to the list.
>>>> 
>>>> Sam
>>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>>>> 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net->>>>
d
>>>> ns
>>>> -everydns
>>>> 
>>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site
>>>> endangered
>>>> other
>>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
>>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>>>> 
>>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>
>>>> address.
>>>> Photograph: Joe
>>>> Raedle/Getty Images
>>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>>>> 
>>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>>>> 
>>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>>>> them.
>>>> 
>>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>>>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>>>> 
>>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>>>> problem."
>>>> 
>>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>>>> 
>>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>>>> 
>>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
>>>> suffix.
>>>> However, the
>>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>>>> 
>>>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
>>>> Friday morning,
>>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>>>> still being done by everydns.
>>>> 
>>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>>>> relationship with the website."
>>>> 
>>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>>>> 
>>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>>>> 
>>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
>>>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  ­ also
>>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>>>> web services director, this morning launched
>>>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  ­ a
>>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>>>> 
>>>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>>>> service said that
>>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
>>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>>>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>>>> Thursday).
>>>> 
>>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>>>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
>>>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>>>> 
>>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks ­ which have been
>>>> going on all
>>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
>>>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables
>>>> access
>>>> to almost
>>>> 500,000 other websites".
>>>> 
>>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  website has
>>>> resulted from its
>>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>>>> 
>>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>>>> 
>>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>>>> 
>>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>>>> 
>>>> Amazon said:
>>>> 
>>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
>>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>>>> 
>>>> It noted that:
>>>> 
>>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>>>> 
>>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>>>> Iraq.
>>>> 
>>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>>>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>>>> 
>>>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
>>>> 
Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115->>>>
8
>>>> 6e
>>>> d04cc> 
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04
>>>> cc>   Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>>>> 
Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=892311>>>>
5
>>>> -e
>>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>>>> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e
>>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>>>> <http://www.listbox.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
>>>>         
>>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101205/a1a34642/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Sun Dec  5 03:00:33 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 09:00:33 +0100
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder
to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples:

- Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in
trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime.
- Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National
Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT)
- Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the
UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term
of services found. (e.g. Brazil example).
- Measurement of the impact of IG on development.

I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global
internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing
mechanisms.

Best,

Miguel

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'
>
> Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that
>
> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner."
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
>
> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
> age.
>
> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
> enquiries.
>
> .
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
> Lieberman and Bezos :)
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
> Liebermann....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
> service, below.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Sam <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> This may be of interest to the list.
>
> Sam
> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d
> ns
> -everydns
>
> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site endangered
> other
> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>
> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  address.
> Photograph: Joe
> Raedle/Getty Images
> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>
> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>
> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
> them.
>
> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>
> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
> problem."
>
> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>
> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>
> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
> suffix.
> However, the
> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>
> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
> Friday morning,
> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
> still being done by everydns.
>
> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
> relationship with the website."
>
> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>
> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>
> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  ­ also
> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
> web services director, this morning launched
> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  ­ a
> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>
> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
> service said that
> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
> Thursday).
>
> DNS services translate a website name, such as
> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks ­ which have been
> going on all
> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables
> access
> to almost
> 500,000 other websites".
>
> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  website has
> resulted from its
> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>
> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>
> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>
> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>
> Amazon said:
>
> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>
> It noted that:
>
> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>
> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
> Iraq.
>
> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
> further donations to "keep us strong".
>
> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-8
> 6e
> d04cc>  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115
> -e
> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
> <http://www.listbox.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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Dec  5 04:11:58 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 20:11:58 +1100
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C921A28E.1421B%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Great start to a list Miguel. Although it may be contentious, I would also
add dealing with illegal and/or offensive content. Consistency, a policy
framework and a set of principles for appropriate action mechanisms here
would IMHO be far better than the current ad hoc removal or blocking of
sites by a variety of players for a variety of dubious reasons.

Ian Peter


> From: Miguel Alcaine <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Miguel Alcaine
> <miguel.alcaine at gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 09:00:33 +0100
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder
> to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples:
> 
> - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in
> trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime.
> - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National
> Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT)
> - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the
> UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term
> of services found. (e.g. Brazil example).
> - Measurement of the impact of IG on development.
> 
> I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global
> internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing
> mechanisms.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Miguel
> 
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi All
>> 
>> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since
>> the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related
>> policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'
>> 
>> Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that
>> 
>> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and
>> Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be
>> addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional
>> mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public
>> policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative
>> manner."
>> 
>> Parminder
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 
>> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
>> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
>> 
>> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
>> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
>> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
>> age.
>> 
>> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
>> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
>> enquiries.
>> 
>> .
>> 
>> Ian Peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
>> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
>> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>> 
>> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
>> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
>> Lieberman and Bezos :)
>> 
>> --c.a.
>> 
>> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
>> Liebermann....
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>> 
>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
>> service, below.
>> 
>> Lee
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>> To: ip
>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>> 
>> Begin forwarded message:
>> 
>> From: Sam <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>> 
>> This may be of interest to the list.
>> 
>> Sam
>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d
>> ns
>> -everydns
>> 
>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site endangered
>> other
>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>> 
>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  address.
>> Photograph: Joe
>> Raedle/Getty Images
>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>> 
>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>> 
>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>> them.
>> 
>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>> 
>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>> problem."
>> 
>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>> 
>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>> 
>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
>> suffix.
>> However, the
>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>> 
>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
>> Friday morning,
>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>> still being done by everydns.
>> 
>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>> relationship with the website."
>> 
>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>> 
>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>> 
>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  ­ also
>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>> web services director, this morning launched
>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  ­ a
>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>> 
>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>> service said that
>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>> Thursday).
>> 
>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>> 
>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks ­ which have been
>> going on all
>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables
>> access
>> to almost
>> 500,000 other websites".
>> 
>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  website has
>> resulted from its
>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>> 
>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>> 
>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>> 
>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>> 
>> Amazon said:
>> 
>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>> 
>> It noted that:
>> 
>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>> 
>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>> Iraq.
>> 
>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>> 
>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-8
>> 6e
>> d04cc>  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115
>> -e
>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>> <http://www.listbox.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
>> 
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 pouzin at well.com  Sun Dec  5 06:27:22 2010
From: pouzin at well.com (Pouzin (well))
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:27:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimXpGbjPnMgo0pYqXncVsT6RsR6fsYx5QNbr2NO@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there now really a case for ruling the root in the US?

- - -

As we may observe, China and USA (among others) are countries where shutting
off web sites and revoking domain names result from  government decisions.

This is a wake-up call for clients of US registries such as .com, .net,
.org, and about all TLD's feeding ICANN cash cow. Luckily open roots are in
the offing to provide safer harbors.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101205/60d1119c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Sun Dec  5 07:02:38 2010
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 14:02:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] Why Amazon caved, and what it means for Rest of us -
 columbia journalism review
Message-ID: <4CFB7F5E.9060102@gmail.com>


        The News Frontier <http://www.cjr.org/the_news_frontier/> ---
        December 3, 2010 10:20 AM


      Why Amazon Caved, and What It Means for the Rest of Us

A Q&A with Ethan Zuckerman

By Lauren Kirchner <http://www.cjr.org/author/lauren-kirchner-1/>

Amazon Web Services dropped WikiLeaks material from its servers on 
Tuesday, a move that is widely assumed to be a direct response to 
pressure from the Senate Homeland Security Committee. A statement 
<http://aws.amazon.com/message/65348/> from Amazon disputed that, 
stating that they kicked WikiLeaks off for violating the terms of 
service: "For example, our terms of service state that 'you represent 
and warrant that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the 
content... that use of the content you supply does not violate this 
policy and will not cause injury to any person or entity.'"

It's not the first time the company has pulled something like this. Just 
last year 
<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html>, 
Amazon "remotely deleted" the e-editions of two books that customers had 
already downloaded to their Kindle readers, after it was discovered that 
the books' seller did not have the rights to them. (And just their luck: 
the public relations headache that resulted from the deletion was no 
doubt amplified by the fact that the two books in question happened to 
be by George Orwell.) As Gawker's Ryan Tate notes, Amazon's policy of 
which content partners it will protect, and when, and why, is 
inconsistent and unpredictable 
<http://beta.gawker.com/#%215703654/amazoncom-evicts-wikileaks-whos-next>, 
to say the least.

TechPresident's Micah Sifry reported Wednesday 
<http://techpresident.com/blog-entry/liebermans-message-tech-companies-stay-away-wikileaks> 
that, according to the Senate Homeland Security Committee spokesperson 
Leslie Phillips, the committee has not contacted any other tech 
companies whose services WikiLeaks has utilized, like Twitter or 
Facebook. However, Phillips added, "Senator Lieberman hopes that what 
has transpired with Amazon will send a message to other companies."

At least one other company got that "message" loud and clear. 
Open-source data visualization program Tableau Public also removed 
WikiLeaks-published visualizations from its site, a decision which a 
statement on the Tableau website 
<http://www.tableausoftware.com/blog/why-we-removed-wikileaks-visualizations> 
acknowledges was made in response to the public request by Lieberman to 
do so.

So what does that mean for the rest of us? CJR assistant editor Lauren 
Kirchner spoke with Ethan Zuckerman, researcher for the Berkman Center 
for Internet and Society <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/>---who has 
written 
<http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2010/10/01/public-spaces-private-infrastructure-open-video-conference/> 
about 
<http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2010/12/01/if-amazon-has-silenced-wikileaks/> 
the tricky intersection of public space (the Internet) and private 
infrastructure (service providers)---about the broader implications of 
this news.

*Why do you think WikiLeaks chose Amazon servers in the first place?*

My guess is that it's a very easy way to buy a lot of server capacity 
really fast. I mean, WikiLeaks was facing two things at the same time: 
they were under tremendous load, probably in the neighborhood of ten to 
fifteen gigabits per second of traffic, and at the same time they were 
experiencing a DDos [distributed denial-of-service 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack>] attack of two 
to four gigabits per second the first time around, and about ten the 
second time around. It's a pretty common tactic when you're under DDoS 
to try to get onto a pretty big server farm. If you're both trying to 
serve an enormous amount of traffic and cope with DDos, Amazon makes 
very good sense, actually. You're going to pay for it, but I don't think 
that was their big constraint; their big constraint was trying to stay 
up in the face of all the interest in the documents.

*To what extent is a company like Amazon legally responsible for 
documents it hosts?*

That is an incredibly complicated question. Everything has to go under 
the I Am Not a Lawyer disclaimer here. Essentially, there are real 
questions about what the legal liability is, in dealing with any of the 
WikiLeaks material. Different lawyers might answer that question very 
differently. Generally speaking, though, there are a good number of 
protections of internet service providers against things like copyright 
infringement, through things like the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright 
Act <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA> of 1998], which basically says, 
as long as you follow this process correctly, you're not going to be 
held liable for contributory copyright infringement. But to the best of 
my knowledge, no one's put anything together essentially saying, here's 
the policy you should go through if you are alerted that you are holding 
government secrets. I think where I and Rebecca [MacKinnon 
<http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/02/mackinnon.wikileaks.amazon/>] and 
others have criticized Amazon's move is that it's not clear that they 
actually received any legal notice; it sounds like what it amounted to 
was essentially just political pressure.

*I know this is just conjecture here, but if Amazon had pushed back 
against the Senate Homeland Security Committee, do you think the 
Committee would have threatened legal action? What's the nature of the 
threat there?*

The interesting thing about it is, the actual cables, the actual data in 
question, wasn't being distributed on Amazon servers. That's being 
hosted on a peer-to-peer network, so what Amazon was distributing was 
basically the index page: 'here's what we have, here's the link to the 
torrent files.' So the truth is, you'd have a hard time getting an 
injunction saying that Amazon was contributing to espionage or to the 
dissemination of stolen goods, because in fact, all they were really 
doing was hosting the HTML page that said, here's how to go get this on 
bit torrent. As far as we can tell, no one did take legal action to 
force Amazon's hand; it just responded to pressure. All of that, to me, 
makes it look pretty egregious, and should raise some questions for 
anyone who's a customer of Amazon's web services.

*When WikiLeaks got the boot from Amazon, they wrote on Twitter 
<http://twitter.com/#%21/wikileaks/status/10073870316863488>, "If Amazon 
is so uncomfortable with the First Amendment, they should get out of the 
business of selling books." Do you consider this a First Amendment issue?*

The First Amendment is what everyone loves invoking. But of course the 
First Amendment begins with the words "Congress shall make no law." And 
I didn't see Congress passing any legislation here. Here's the thing. 
Amazon is perfectly, legally justified in kicking customers off its 
service for any reason. They do have to realize that there are enormous 
PR implications when they do so. What Amazon is asserting here is that 
they are willing to remove content based on political pressure, or based 
on the perception of the offensiveness of that content.

What's really hard about this is that we perceive the web to be a public 
space, a place where you should be able to go and set up your soapbox 
and say whatever you want to say to the world. The truth is, the web is 
almost entirely privately held. So what happens here is that we have a 
normative understanding that we should treat this like public 
space---that you should have rights to speak, that no one should 
constrain your rights---but then you discover that, basically, you're 
holding a political rally in a shopping mall. This is commercial speech, 
controlled by commercial rules. My sense is that companies try really, 
really hard not to assert their corporate imperatives, and to say, 
'we're going to silent speech,' because that makes people really 
uncomfortable. But in this case, I think Amazon probably did a mental 
calculation and said, 'if we don't do this, we're going to end up the 
subject of a boycott on Fox News, and that's coming right before the 
Christmas season, we can't afford that.' I have no way of justifying 
that statement; that's a speculation. But I understand why they might be 
concerned about this.

What I actually think we might want to do, on a policy standpoint, is to 
try to obligate Internet service providers to protect speech in a way 
that recognizes that it functions as public speech. If there were a way 
for Amazon to say, 'actually, we can't remove this, these people have a 
right to speak unless someone provides an injunction to prove that this 
is illegal,' that would save them from being the subject of this CJR 
article at the moment.

*There's definitely an inherent compromise at play here. At CJR, for 
instance, we occasionally upload videos to our site, and for that we use 
YouTube or Vimeo. The great thing about those services, of course, is 
that they're free and easy to use. But the downside is we don't have 
control then over that content, and who might have access to it, who 
might erase it, etcetera, because those companies don't have an 
obligation to us, to protect our material that we've uploaded. Do you 
think that media organizations---and everyone---should be more aware of 
this kind of compromise? I realize that's a pretty leading question at 
this point....*

You're leading the question, but it's a place I'm happy to be led. I 
wrote a piece in October called "Public Space, Private Infrastructure" 
<http://www.ethanzuckerman.com/blog/2010/10/01/public-spaces-private-infrastructure-open-video-conference/> 
based on a talk I gave at the Open Video Conference, in which I talked 
about what you're getting at. I talked about a friend of mine, Wael 
Abbas, an Egyptian activist who has been responsible for posting more 
than 200 videos that expose the police brutality and abuse in Egypt on 
YouTube. At one point, YouTube reacted and pulled them all down. What I 
said was, 'I know you all are expecting me to say, YouTube is evil, 
don't ever use it'; but actually what I said was that he was right to 
use YouTube. The reason being, his blog is under a DDoS attack all the 
time. If he tried to host his own videos, he'd never manage to keep his 
blog up. Just the infrastructure required to make those videos 
accessible to the world, and to protect them from attack, basically 
requires you to crouch under a big rock. YouTube is one of the biggest 
rocks out there; it makes perfect sense that you'd want to keep your 
speech there.

However, you have to realize that you're then dependent on that 
organization. So you need to choose organizations that have a good track 
record of protecting people's rights. YouTube actually does; Facebook, 
for instance, doesn't. We're starting to sort of get a sense for who is 
better and worse at this. Ideally you'd like to use an organization that 
has someone who's dedicated to human rights issues, and whom you can 
contact if there is a human rights violation related to a takedown of 
your stuff.

The truth is, if you decide to go it alone, do it yourself, you might 
find yourself in the situation that my friends recently found themselves 
in, in Zimbabwe. They run a leading human rights site, and they had 
purchased hosting by Bluehost, which is a hosting provider. Bluehost 
woke up one day and said, we shouldn't be providing services to people 
in Zimbabwe. Basically it was based on a terrible misinterpretation of 
U.S. trade sanctions, which are against Bob Mugabe, not against everyone 
in the country. But they removed the site. Unless you have your own T3 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Signal_3> running to your own 
server, the Internet is privately held. And at some point, you're going 
to run into a corporation, and that corporation's decisions determine 
whether you stay online or not. And that is troublesome.

*In a way, this reminds me of the warrantless wiretapping controversy. 
Americans tend to think of phone calls as private---or they used to, 
anyway---but apparently phone companies can make secret deals with the 
government to let them listen in whenever they want, and do so without 
telling their customers. That came as a shock to most people.*

But at least that's the /government/, right? As absurd and horrible as 
all of that is, and was, the Amazon situation in some ways is even 
worse. This wasn't a government decision, this was a corporate decision. 
If the U.S. government had somehow managed to get an injunction for some 
court system ordering Amazon to take this down, I would then be asking 
questions about whether that moved correctly through the legal channels. 
But what happened here, instead, is that a powerful senator called up 
Amazon and said, "This is terrible, do the right thing," and they caved. 
That should send a message to anyone who is working with Amazon, that 
Amazon might make the decision to stop providing you services based on 
your content, or based on a complaint. That's worrisome.

*You said that people should be choosing their service providers 
carefully, based on the companies' human rights history, or a person on 
staff who is dedicated to those types of issues. But is that information 
that people typically have access to?*

I think that it's information that we're only going to get through 
better press coverage of this. I think this is a new issue for most 
people. I think that most people just haven't thought through this at 
all. And when people respond to something like WikiLeaks getting cut off 
of Amazon by saying, 'This is a First Amendment issue,' it shows you how 
little people actually know about what's going on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101205/a34856aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Sun Dec  5 10:55:57 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 10:55:57 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net>
 <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

I've decided to go to New York City on December 14 - thanks to ISOC-NY chapter and Joly for helping to make this possible.
I understand that David Allen will also be there but two heads are better than one. Please let me know who else from this group is going.

Let me know how I can be of assistance in representing the view of IGC at this meeting, both procedurally and substantively.
On substance, if there are specific consensus statements that need to be advanced, or issues that we have all agreed to prioritize, please call my attention to them. I admit that I have not been able to closely follow IGC list in the past week as the school semester here concludes.

Procedurally, I would like to know more about what are our access rights at this meeting and who do we need to work with to get them.

--MM


From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:59 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs

On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote:


A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus on the following two questions.

 1.  What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?
 2.  What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international cooperation in these areas?

Thanks, I missed this.  Are there any views that we as the IGC would like to add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions?  It is likely that we will have one or two IGC representatives present at this month's enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm discussing with them off-list), who could deliver our further contributions on these questions.
--
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<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>. Don't print this email unless necessary.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101205/b867acb3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From gadi at anime.org  Sun Dec  5 11:01:35 2010
From: gadi at anime.org (Gadi Evron)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 18:01:35 +0200
Subject: [governance] (wikileaks) Google as DNS?
Message-ID: <2ACAE89A-10DE-44A2-AF44-BC94398C2704@anime.org>

I withhold comment... "discuss amongst yourselves".

Best,

	Gadi.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[funsec] And Google becomes a DNS..
Date: 	Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:34:50 +0200
From: 	Imri Goldberg <lorgandon at gmail.com>
To: 	funsec <funsec at linuxbox.org>


Found on reddit:
http://i.imgur.com/Q5SVu.png

-- 
Imri Goldberg
--------------------------------------
http://plnnr.com/ - automatic trip planning
http://www.algorithm.co.il/blogs/
--------------------------------------
-- insert signature here ----


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Dec  5 11:19:58 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:19:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikvpbm4=mk9n1WsALC_Pjb-nwh1aGvJ4HY2m9Sj@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTikUbd3rnYEoLiuLHiC1YOgrs1Rnyr8a7SQtQJ4P@mail.gmail.com>
 <4CF7CF04.6010207@ITforChange.net>
 <AANLkTikvpbm4=mk9n1WsALC_Pjb-nwh1aGvJ4HY2m9Sj@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF09@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Are you going to answer my question, (to wit; Can I steal your
> documents and publish them online as part of my FOE?) ...or should I
> give up?
> 

I'll answer this. 

At the legal level: In the US there are well-established legal precedents regarding journalists and their sources which basically say, "it's your job, government, to protect your information; if you fail at that and a journalist gets their hands on some juicy stuff that puts you in a bad light, you can prosecute the leaker but not the publisher." See NY Times and the Pentagon papers case. The complication with Wikileaks is that it is not a traditional journalist. To some of us, that doesn't matter. 

At a normative level, if "your documents" refers to a government that is supposed to derive its legitimacy from the people and those documents reveal seriously unethical or illegal behavior with real or potential ill effects on the public, then I believe that a whistle-blower is justified in leaking them and think we owe them a debt of gratitude for taking the risks to do so. Unless you believe that ITforChange holds some kind of global public trust and/or that its actions are seriously damaging, and criminal or unethical in a way that _requires_ public exposure, then I see no justification in your stealing their docs and publishing them. 

Accordingly I do not support Lieberman's actions or Amazon's cowardly compliance (though I understand Amazon's motives). This is all about maintaining the trappings and illusions of US power, nothing more. This is about asserting their pride and arrogance at our diplomat's ability to "operate" unaccountably. It shakes them up in a way that they really need to have done. The dialogue around this issue here in the US is ridiculous: the rightwingers try to portray Assange not as an advocate of transparency and information freedom but as an "enemy of the United States" and call for the death penalty. So there is a very clear clash here between the nation-state paradigm, the competition among states for supremacy, and the openness of information associated with the internet. I hope everyone here understands where I stand on that one. 

Of course, public disclosure of information can be abused, it would be silly not to admit that, too. Think of the college student who videotaped his closeted roommate in a gay encounter and put it on Facebook. For every new capability opened up by the internet there are new problems.

This IS a freedom of expression issue _and_ it is a national security issue, _and_ it is potentially a privacy issue.

--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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Sun Dec  5 11:28:58 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 17:28:58 +0100
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net>
	<496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinjok1KjUYBUCbYf2+HXSbpgE4HyjX36WwGzJm3@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> I’ve decided to go to New York City on December 14 – thanks to ISOC-NY
> chapter and Joly for helping to make this possible.
>
> I understand that David Allen will also be there but two heads are better
> than one.
>
>
> Sounds good. To complete the hydra, have we figured out who to deal with at
CONGO?

Greetings from Cartagena,

Bill
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101205/cb9e37f0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  5 11:30:18 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:30:18 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <07C3D383-E7F0-45C6-90F2-E6F38AE122C0@acm.org>

Hi,

I have thought of going down since I will be in Providence.  Not sure yet though.

a.



On 5 Dec 2010, at 10:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> I’ve decided to go to New York City on December 14 – thanks to ISOC-NY chapter and Joly for helping to make this possible.
> I understand that David Allen will also be there but two heads are better than one. Please let me know who else from this group is going.
> 
> Let me know how I can be of assistance in representing the view of IGC at this meeting, both procedurally and substantively.
> On substance, if there are specific consensus statements that need to be advanced, or issues that we have all agreed to prioritize, please call my attention to them. I admit that I have not been able to closely follow IGC list in the past week as the school semester here concludes.
> 
> Procedurally, I would like to know more about what are our access rights at this meeting and who do we need to work with to get them.
> 
> --MM
> 
> 
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 12:59 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
> 
> On 02/12/2010, at 1:43 PM, parminder wrote:
> 
> 
> A new communication from UN DESA asked for inputs to also specifically focus on the following two questions.
> 
> 	• What international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet are not being adequately addressed by current mechanisms?
> 	• What specific processes should be pursued to enhance international cooperation in these areas?
> 
> Thanks, I missed this.  Are there any views that we as the IGC would like to add to our existing statement, addressing these two questions?  It is likely that we will have one or two IGC representatives present at this month's enhanced cooperation consultation meeting (I'm discussing with them off-list), who could deliver our further contributions on these questions.
> -- 
> 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.
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>   governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Dec  5 11:32:28 2010
From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 11:32:28 -0500
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimXpGbjPnMgo0pYqXncVsT6RsR6fsYx5QNbr2NO@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com>
	<AANLkTimXpGbjPnMgo0pYqXncVsT6RsR6fsYx5QNbr2NO@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikF2svm+ohsmDO7Kk_=V36cv3uG4yWv-hStKoc7@mail.gmail.com>

I'm about to renew some domain names, and if the Terms of Service (to
date, unknown to me in this particular), happen to contain the term
apparently relied upon by everydns that being subject to a DDOS attack
(a criminal act) is a violation by ME of their terms of service, I'm
going to hold off on renewing and tell them why.

I realize it's possible all other hosts and sellers of domain names
might have the same language somewhere, especially with legal
boilerplate language being such as it is and the rampant extent of
copycat lawyers who try to give corporate or ISP clients the most
overbroad and overreaching claimed TOS rights as the lawyer can
possibly dream up.

Still, I have serious doubts about the enforceability of contractual
terms that find ME in violation of terms of service for criminal acts
against me that are the fault of someone else.  Of course, the claimed
TOS violation for not owning all rights in the material is a different
argument.  The lawyer who argued that one was misguided, in my
opinion, for the federal government in the USA claims no copyright.
They would be better off arguing the catchall warranty of "no
violation of state or federal law" in the material posted.  But then
that falls into Assange's argument that censorship has been privatised
and websites taken down for "illegality" without any due process much
less a trial.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

PS  I think it is important, on the general level, to not drop one's
critical analysis of documents just because they claim to have been
"leaked" via Wikileaks or anywhere else.  While many are surely
authentic, with such volumes as are present here, and with documents
readily available electronically to relatively low level military
people, the risk of capture is surely a known risk and therefore there
could easily have been the foresight to have disinformation within
that data stream and not just "information."  To the extent, IF ANY,
that this is true, the wikileaks documents constitute some of the most
effective possible propaganda because they are immediately accepted on
their face as true documents, a glimpse into the "inner workings" of
government, and thus the statements in their pass straight into the
history books (eventually) without question.  If there were a few or a
bunch of such plants, this would be a very clever way to write or
rewrite history.  Do I believe this to be the case?  Not really, but
the single document I saw on WORLD PERCEPTIONS of the USA as an
exporter of terrorism failed to mention the USA government itself as
being PERCEIVED anywhere around the world as such an exporter.  Surely
a CIA analyst is not under political restrictions when speaking about
perceptions in other countries and can't really be quite that dumb or
uninformed, so there's a tiny seed in my mind of doubt about the
authenticity of at least that one single document I saw.  But, at the
end of the day, all I'm advocating is not belief or disbelief in
authenticity, but just retaining one's usual circumspection and
thoughtful analysis and not presuming everything is as it seems.
That's the whole idea in the world of spooks, isn't it? That not all
is exactly as it seems??  ;)   Have fun wrapping your mind around this
if you've even read this!  :)
On 12/5/10, Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there now really a case for ruling the root in the US?
>
> - - -
>
> As we may observe, China and USA (among others) are countries where shutting
> off web sites and revoking domain names result from  government decisions.
>
> This is a wake-up call for clients of US registries such as .com, .net,
> .org, and about all TLD's feeding ICANN cash cow. Luckily open roots are in
> the offing to provide safer harbors.
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Sun Dec  5 11:45:33 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:45:33 +0000
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <4CF9CFC6.6080508 at itforchange.net>, at 10:51:10 on Sat, 4 Dec 
2010, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>
>On Friday 03 December 2010 07:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>  In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3
>  Dec 2010, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>    Dear Roland,
>    At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my
>>    approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me
>>    say it
>>    again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD
>>    initiatives.
>>    Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and
>>    global democracy count for anything?
>
>>  That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong
>  with the initiatives.
 >
>Who decides what is wrong or not?
 >
In the context of the initiatives mentioned - the countries who would 
sign up to them (or not).
 >
>The corresponding question - since I
>asked if democracy counts for anything - is how does lack of democracy
>in a country matter if 'things are working well', whatever it means.
 >
The decision processes within those countries is a local issue. I'm not 
sure that we can assert that the need to have a democratic policy 
development process for Internet Governance, is enough to overthrow the 
local systems which already develop policy on thousands of other issues.
 >
>For a global civil society group, the lack of enthusiasm for global
>democracy here worries me a lot.

We've seen what happens when you try to organise 190 governments into a 
global telecoms policy development process - it's called the ITU. With 
that many people potentially having an opinion, and many issues to 
discuss, no wonder the result is 3 week meetings with 2,000 attendees.

I don't know an easy way to scale that up to include multiple 
stakeholders from 190 countries. There's a danger of inventing a 
decision-making IGF, and I don't want to impose a discussion about that 
upon the list.
-- 
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 avri at acm.org  Sun Dec  5 12:17:58 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 12:17:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>,<C921580C.14208%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE0@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <388AFEFC-257B-4788-83A5-24411953E37C@acm.org>


I think making a generic statement along these lines would be a useful thing for the IGC to have done.  I think that is would have to include a caveat that "in so far as they are not being addressed by existing mechanisms"  and not to include the presumption that that this is the case for of those numerious trans-border issues.

a.


On 5 Dec 2010, at 00:45, Lee W McKnight wrote:

> 2nd yep for Parminder's statement
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 10:54 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
> 
> Yep, what Parminder said.
> 
> I believe we should make a generic statement along these lines
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 08:31:35 +0530
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
> 
> Hi All
> 
> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'
> 
> Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that
> 
> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner."
> 
> Parminder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
> 
> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
> age.
> 
> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
> enquiries.
> 
> .
> 
> Ian Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>
> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> , Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> 
> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
> Lieberman and Bezos :)
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
> Liebermann....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> , Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> 
> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
> service, below.
> 
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Sam™<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> 
> This may be of interest to the list.
> 
> Sam™
> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d
> ns
> -everydns
> 
> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site endangered
> other
> customers' service – effectively pushing site off the web
> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
> 
> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  address.
> Photograph: Joe
> Raedle/Getty Images
> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
> 
> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
> 
> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
> them.
> 
> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
> 
> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
> problem."
> 
> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
> 
> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
> 
> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
> a new domain name – wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
> suffix.
> However, the
> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
> 
> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
> Friday morning,
> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
> still being done by everydns.
> 
> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
> relationship with the website."
> 
> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
> 
> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
> 
> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain –
> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  – also
> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
> web services director, this morning launched
> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  – a
> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
> 
> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
> service said that
> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
> – who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net – meant that the leaks
> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
> Thursday).
> 
> DNS services translate a website name, such as
> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
> machine-readable "IP quads" – in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
> site is only reachable via IP address – but WikiLeaks has not yet
> provided one via Twitter or other means.
> 
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks – which have been
> going on all
> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service – "threaten the stability
> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables
> access
> to almost
> 500,000 other websites".
> 
> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>  website has
> resulted from its
> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
> 
> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
> 
> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
> the data – and who has influenced at least one other US company to
> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
> 
> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
> 
> Amazon said:
> 
> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the content…
> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
> 
> It noted that:
> 
> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
> 
> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
> Iraq.
> 
> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
> further donations to "keep us strong".
> 
> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-8
> 6e
> d04cc> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>   Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115
> -e
> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
> <http://www.listbox.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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Dec  5 13:00:03 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 21:00:03 +0300
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <C921A28E.1421B%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com> <C921A28E.1421B%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=PPsA1qo44QgDwdCHsGypBBDS640fUC83_puuM@mail.gmail.com>

Ian,

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Great start to a list Miguel. Although it may be contentious, I would also
> add dealing with illegal and/or offensive content. Consistency, a policy
> framework and a set of principles for appropriate action mechanisms here
> would IMHO be far better than the current ad hoc removal or blocking of
> sites by a variety of players for a variety of dubious reasons.

I think that your idea is predicated on the notion that gov'ts would
give up a certain amount of sovereignty to a Global body empowered to
act on these issues.  I'm not sure, after WSIS, that I see that being
a possibility.

In other words, I'm thinking that "a variety of players for a variety
of dubious reasons" will continue to carry out what they think are
their national interests, without regard to any international
agreements that may be made.

What we have seen this week is that the old saw that "information
wants to be free" is more powerful than even the most powerful
government.

-- 
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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Sun Dec  5 16:58:51 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:58:51 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>,<M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

First,

Since I seem to be taking the unpopular positions of late - allow me to defend the ITU's honor : )

1st international organization (you'd think the postal folks would have started to cooperate first at international level, but no, the techie telegraph operators led the way.)

And you all like your GSM or 3G or 4G mobiles right, which work pretty well across borders these days? Ever hear of GPS? You can either thank the US air force or ITU for that, depending as it does on orbital arc allocations...and oh yeah someone to launch the satellites. Anyway, point is in spite of ITU's interminable processes, they work reasonably well for...190 countries; and lots of users. Leaving aside for now how they may be improved in a multistakeholder manner.

Now back to the question at hand, can we do better than that for global democratic processes around Internet governance? Of course.  See there's these Internet protocols which make it trivially easy to go from local to global...ok yeah more than that is needed but scalability is NOT the problem.

Being afraid to even broach the subject is the surest way to make sure it never happens.

So definitely that should be a talking point for David A., however it is wordsmithed between now and 12.14, starting from Parminder's pretty reasonable draft.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 11:45 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs

In message <4CF9CFC6.6080508 at itforchange.net>, at 10:51:10 on Sat, 4 Dec
2010, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>
>On Friday 03 December 2010 07:46 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>  In message <4CF8C38E.8030507 at itforchange.net>, at 15:46:46 on Fri, 3
>  Dec 2010, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> writes
>    Dear Roland,
>    At least I have mentioned it several times why it doesnt meet my
>>    approval (and that of most developing country actors) . Let me
>>    say it
>>    again - I and my country are not represented in CoE/ OECD
>>    initiatives.
>>    Do you think this is not a good enough reason? Does democracy and
>>    global democracy count for anything?
>
>>  That depends whether or not there's anything fundamentally wrong
>  with the initiatives.
 >
>Who decides what is wrong or not?
 >
In the context of the initiatives mentioned - the countries who would
sign up to them (or not).
 >
>The corresponding question - since I
>asked if democracy counts for anything - is how does lack of democracy
>in a country matter if 'things are working well', whatever it means.
 >
The decision processes within those countries is a local issue. I'm not
sure that we can assert that the need to have a democratic policy
development process for Internet Governance, is enough to overthrow the
local systems which already develop policy on thousands of other issues.
 >
>For a global civil society group, the lack of enthusiasm for global
>democracy here worries me a lot.

We've seen what happens when you try to organise 190 governments into a
global telecoms policy development process - it's called the ITU. With
that many people potentially having an opinion, and many issues to
discuss, no wonder the result is 3 week meetings with 2,000 attendees.

I don't know an easy way to scale that up to include multiple
stakeholders from 190 countries. There's a danger of inventing a
decision-making IGF, and I don't want to impose a discussion about that
upon the list.
--
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  5 19:47:47 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:47:47 -0500
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims
 website's co-founder
In-Reply-To: <BB4B5480-2D94-4649-B264-71C68CFBA6AB@me.com>
References: <004401cb94ca$ac151ac0$9d00a8c0@RJRTX690P>,<BB4B5480-2D94-4649-B264-71C68CFBA6AB@me.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

But wait there's more...

Lee
________________________________________
From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:43 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder

Begin forwarded message:

From: "RJR rjriley.com<http://rjriley.com>" <rjr at rjriley.com<mailto:rjr at rjriley.com>>
Date: December 5, 2010 5:20:49 PM EST
To: <mailto:dave at farber.net> dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>
Subject: WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder




Interesting claims, hard to tell what the motive may be.

Ronald J Riley

===

WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder
Selling secrets 'lucrative,' but 'usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit'
________________________________
Posted: December 05, 2010
2:40 pm Eastern

© 2010 WorldNetDaily



One of the early members and co-founders of the tight-knit, secretive WikiLeaks operation charged today that the website and its co-founder, Julian Assange, sold intelligence information the site had obtained.

John Young, whose name was listed as the public face of WikiLeaks in the site's original domain registration, also alleged that the website is a lucrative business.

Young said he left the site in 2007 due to concerns over its finances and that WikiLeaks was engaged in the selling of documents.

More....<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236345>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236345



Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>  | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc> Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20101205174336:0E0876A2-00C1-11E0-9294-A4E83DC78608>     [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] <http://www.listbox.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Sun Dec  5 21:29:59 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 00:29:59 -0200
Subject: [governance] EuroDIG agenda survey
Message-ID: <AANLkTinwrO6UNfW0ZHzaf6-J9RvmGojG741SYixp8D+x@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,


As you may know, an EuroDIG planning meeting took place in Geneva on 23
November. During this meeting the agenda of the 4th EuroDIG in Belgrade
(30/31 May 2011) started to be discussed.


EuroDIG team invite interested people to indicate their preferences in
the *agenda
survey *available here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/eurodig


It will take you no more than 10 min to reply this survey. The results will
be published in EuroDIG website and will be taken into account in the next
planning meeting. The deadline to answer the survey is *December 17*.


This survey is part of a broader initiative to promote e-participation in
EuroDIG, which encompasses online participation in planning meetings, in the
process of agenda setting and remote participation in EuroDIG.


Your comments and suggestions are highly appreciated. You can send them to
office at eurodig.org


Best regards


Marilia

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/f54872e2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Sun Dec  5 23:22:01 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:22:01 +0800
Subject: [governance] Deadline for further input into enhanced cooperation
 statement
Message-ID: <5D762662-A828-4221-B1E3-BC529E046B0E@ciroap.org>

David Allen who will be presenting the IGC's statement in New York (by summarising what we already put forward in writing at http://www.igcaucus.org/node/43, and adding any further input) has asked that we try to finalise our further input by Wednesday, so that he has time to hone what he wants to say and to make sure that it fits into five minutes.

So to try to draw things together by then, it seems to me that we probably have a good measure of support to add at least the following points to our statement:

1. Highlighting (since I don't think this is really a new point) that there are numerous Internet and IG-related trans-border issues that require urgent resolution but are not addressed by existing mechanisms, and that any institutional mechanisms needed to address these must do so in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner.

2. To give as an example of such an issue , the lack of any universal principles of framework to guide the resolution of transboundary jurisdiction disputes, which can involve the content host, content owner, content publisher, domain host, domain registrant, domain registrar, and domain registry and their respective countries.

Maybe also others points, drawing on what Miguel wrote, but let's here from more voices on the list between now and Wednesday.

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/8d42ccef/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  6 01:07:47 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:07:47 +0800
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinjok1KjUYBUCbYf2+HXSbpgE4HyjX36WwGzJm3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4CF731F8.7050100@itforchange.net> <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF06@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTinjok1KjUYBUCbYf2+HXSbpgE4HyjX36WwGzJm3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <89DCA5FE-4FB7-4330-9E16-FED40A331704@ciroap.org>

On 06/12/2010, at 12:28 AM, William Drake wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:55 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> I’ve decided to go to New York City on December 14 – thanks to ISOC-NY chapter and Joly for helping to make this possible.
> 
> I understand that David Allen will also be there but two heads are better than one.
> 
Many thanks Milton, I'll send these details off list.

> Sounds good. To complete the hydra, have we figured out who to deal with at CONGO?

Yes, Liberato Bautista; we've been (attempting to get) in touch with him.

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/5c73abdc/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Mon Dec  6 01:43:00 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 15:43:00 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments to Dec 17 CSTD IGF (WG) meeting?
Message-ID: <AANLkTin+2Bh9wtha_xU552e3LKQ+bG=Fbp2gAwMk+V=W@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

Another open consultation meeting on IGF is scheduled to take
place in Geneva on Dec. 17.  Since we have not seen UN GA
adopting the resolution yet, we are not sure if CSTD WG for IGF
will be announced before this meeting or not.

In any case, we need to prepare for the meeting.
I plan to go to Geneva this time too, using my miles. Will there be
others who may also join?

We also need to consider what we are going to say, if any, to
the answer of the questionnaire we submitted in November.

FYI, our answers to the questionnaire on IGF improvement and the
additional comments I made during Nov 24 meeting are now online
at our website:

http://www.igcaucus.org/node/45

Many thanks,

izumi
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: IGCResponse_CSTD_IGFQnre_Nov19Clean.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 38912 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/c0b0fca6/attachment.doc>

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Mon Dec  6 02:50:16 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 07:50:16 +0000
Subject: [governance] Comments to Dec 17 CSTD IGF (WG) meeting?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin+2Bh9wtha_xU552e3LKQ+bG=Fbp2gAwMk+V=W@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTin+2Bh9wtha_xU552e3LKQ+bG=Fbp2gAwMk+V=W@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ucrAjLD4WJ$MFAXk@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message
<AANLkTin+2Bh9wtha_xU552e3LKQ+bG=Fbp2gAwMk+V=W at mail.gmail.com>, at
15:43:00 on Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> writes
>Another open consultation meeting on IGF is scheduled to take
>place in Geneva on Dec. 17.  Since we have not seen UN GA
>adopting the resolution yet, we are not sure if CSTD WG for IGF
>will be announced before this meeting or not.

The meeting on the 17th is the final day of the regular 2010-2011 CSTD
intersessional panel, although it is titled "CSTD Working Group on the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF)"

http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2010d03_en.pdf

In the earlier "Roadmap" it says:

        "The outcome of the open consultations [24th November] will be
        used as input to the first CSTD Working Group meeting, which
        will take place in conjunction with the CSTD inter-sessional
        panel meeting in December 2010."

Which also suggests that they were expecting a formal meeting of the WG
(whose composition would need to be decided ahead of the meeting).

Perhaps I've missed an announcement that this is an "open" consultation
(rather than restricted to ECOSOC accredited members and perhaps those
WSIS-accredited agencies given a now-expired (but perhaps extended)
five-year "trial membership"?
-- 
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  Mon Dec  6 03:45:38 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 08:45:38 +0000
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 16:58:51 on Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> writes
>First,
>
>Since I seem to be taking the unpopular positions of late - allow me to 
>defend the ITU's honor : )
...
> Anyway, point is in spite of ITU's interminable processes, they work 
>reasonably well for...190 countries; and lots of users.

I wasn't intending to knock the ITU, although it's a spectator sport for 
many. I try to "walk a mile in their shoes" before criticising anyone, 
and in this case have attended about 20 full days of ITU meetings and 
conferences in person, and the same again by remote participation.

>Leaving aside for now how they may be improved in a multistakeholder 
>manner.

There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but there 
are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership 
organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a 
member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be.

>Now back to the question at hand, can we do better than that for global 
>democratic processes around Internet governance? Of course.  See 
>there's these Internet protocols which make it trivially easy to go 
>from local to global...ok yeah more than that is needed but scalability 
>is NOT the problem.

That's a bit like saying it would be easy for everyone to get into the 
governance of air traffic control, because planes fly everywhere. But 
that's an illusion.

>Being afraid to even broach the subject is the surest way to make sure 
>it never happens.
>
>So definitely that should be a talking point for David A., however it 
>is wordsmithed between now and 12.14, starting from Parminder's pretty 
>reasonable draft.

If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance 
of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing 
everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement.
-- 
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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Mon Dec  6 05:12:12 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Mon,  6 Dec 2010 02:12:12 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <14539058.449075.1291630282354.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k30>

Roland Perry wrote :

 > There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but there 
> are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership 
> organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a 
> member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be.

May be You too, dear Roland, should be mindful that ITU is in charge of WSIS Follow-up process, which is (a) a multistakeholder-based one, and (b) focused on society (human, sociological, relational, communicational, economical, political, etc...) issues. 

But, at the same time ITU has two kinds of members : member states and "sector members" i.e. private sector members. CS may be present as "associated members" provided that they pay a couple of thousand swiss francs fees and that they work as bit players because they don't have the rights the secteor members benefit from ! Conclusion (a) : multistakeholder partnership is completely absent in this UN agency.
Moreover, ITU is a technological agency dealing with telecoms worldwide standardization, development and -partially only- regulation. Take a look to its Constitution and Convention. Conclusion (b) : ITU doesn't have any knowledge and even any ability in society issues ! 

Unless it really opens itself to the CS which could -under certain conditions- contribute to "adapt" the ITU technological approach into an info society one. That was -and still is- the position of CSDPTT during the whole WSIS and since its very beginning. Therefore we asked the intergovernmemntal plenary to reform ITU as to be able to open itself to the CS and CSDPTT statement (presented at least three times from 2002 to 2005 ans since then regularly at the May meetings) was supported by a handful of CS orgs ... 

It'd be interesting to get the opinion of the list on this point.

Best regards

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT



 Message du 06/12/10 09:47
> De : "Roland Perry" 
> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
> 
> In message 
> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, 
> at 16:58:51 on Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Lee W McKnight writes
> >First,
> >
> >Since I seem to be taking the unpopular positions of late - allow me to 
> >defend the ITU's honor : )
> ...
> > Anyway, point is in spite of ITU's interminable processes, they work 
> >reasonably well for...190 countries; and lots of users.
> 
> I wasn't intending to knock the ITU, although it's a spectator sport for 
> many. I try to "walk a mile in their shoes" before criticising anyone, 
> and in this case have attended about 20 full days of ITU meetings and 
> conferences in person, and the same again by remote participation.
> 
> >Leaving aside for now how they may be improved in a multistakeholder 
> >manner.
> 
> There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but there 
> are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership 
> organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a 
> member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be.
> 
> >Now back to the question at hand, can we do better than that for global 
> >democratic processes around Internet governance? Of course. See 
> >there's these Internet protocols which make it trivially easy to go 
> >from local to global...ok yeah more than that is needed but scalability 
> >is NOT the problem.
> 
> That's a bit like saying it would be easy for everyone to get into the 
> governance of air traffic control, because planes fly everywhere. But 
> that's an illusion.
> 
> >Being afraid to even broach the subject is the surest way to make sure 
> >it never happens.
> >
> >So definitely that should be a talking point for David A., however it 
> >is wordsmithed between now and 12.14, starting from Parminder's pretty 
> >reasonable draft.
> 
> If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance 
> of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing 
> everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement.
> -- 
> 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
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/385d51f1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  6 07:09:14 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 12:09:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <14539058.449075.1291630282354.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k30>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <14539058.449075.1291630282354.JavaMail.www@wwinf1k30>
Message-ID: <i7vzqGOqJN$MFA0u@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <14539058.449075.1291630282354.JavaMail.www at wwinf1k30>, at 
10:11:25 on Mon, 6 Dec 2010, Jean-Louis FULLSACK <jlfullsack at orange.fr> 
writes
>Roland Perry wrote :
>
> > There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but
>there
>> are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership
>> organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a
>> member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be.
>
>May be You too, dear Roland, should be mindful that ITU is in charge of
>WSIS Follow-up process, which is (a) a multistakeholder-based one, and
>(b) focused on society (human, sociological, relational,
>communicational, economical, political, etc...) issues.

We should be careful not to confuse the meetings of the ITU itself, and 
those "external" meetings which the ITU organises. As a straw poll, I 
was accepted as a delegate to the recent WSIS Forum meeting in Geneva, 
in my private capacity. I'm sure others will have a similar experience.

>But, at the same time ITU has two kinds of members : member states and
>"sector members" i.e. private sector members.

Indeed so, and over the last two years I have attended the ITU's 
meetings as a staffer of a Sector Member, but also as an "invited 
expert". (You can get into lots of meetings of various otherwise closed 
organisations that way).

>CS may be present as "associated members" provided that they pay a 
>couple of thousand swiss francs fees and that they work as bit players 
>because they don't have the rights the secteor members benefit from !

An Associate Member is pretty much indistinguishable from a Sector 
Member, except for the one proviso that they have to nominate just one 
Study Group to attend, rather than all of them. There may be some other 
subtleties, because one of the long (felt like an hour) wrangles at WTDC 
Hyderbad this year was whether a particular resolution should refer to 
'members' or 'Members', which meant deciding what was the difference 
between the two (associates don't have a Big-M apparently).

But I didn't mention the ITU to spark a debate about membership fees - 
it was simply to highlight the size of organisation and number (and 
length) of meetings that result, when you have many decisions on 
multiple topics to bring to a large audience.

>Conclusion (a) :
>multistakeholder partnership is completely absent in this UN agency.

It's not as simple as that. Agreed, there may currently be little civil 
society input into things they govern (like satellite slots), but 
there's a lot of partnership when involved in external activities like 
WSIS followup.

>Moreover, ITU is a technological agency dealing with telecoms worldwide
>standardization, development and -partially only- regulation. Take a
>look to its Constitution and Convention. Conclusion (b) : ITU doesn't
>have any knowledge and even any ability in society issues !

In the same sense that Civil Society has no ability in telecoms 
standardisation and development issues? If so, why would CS want to 
participate in ITU core issues... The reality is that there's more 
overlap of knowledge and ability between different stakeholder groups 
than is commonly acknowledged.

>Unless it really opens itself to the CS which could -under certain
>conditions- contribute to "adapt" the ITU technological approach into
>an info society one. That was -and still is- the position of CSDPTT
>during the whole WSIS and since its very beginning. Therefore we asked
>the intergovernmemntal plenary to reform ITU as to be able to open
>itself to the CS and CSDPTT statement (presented at least three times
>from 2002 to 2005 ans since then regularly at the May meetings) was
>supported by a handful of CS orgs ...
>It'd be interesting to get the opinion of the list on this point.

Of course - that's what the list is for.
-- 
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  Mon Dec  6 08:05:37 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 18:35:37 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	<4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CFCDFA1.1090701@itforchange.net>

Thanks Miguel for the list. Some of these overlap with IT for Change 
list in its submission.  We have mentioned a dev agenda in IG in rather 
more elaborate terms, but I agree, your wording of the dev agenda should 
be good enough for a start.

Submitting for the lists consideration, a couple of more points. If 
necessary, shorter and simpler language can be used for each.

    *

      Global Internet traffic flows – in terms of interconnection
      systems as well as globally open architecture of such flows
      (global net neutrality, also including global policy frameworks
      for downstream net neutrality)

    *

      Resolving specific cross-border Internet related issues (content,
      security, privacy, crime, access to knowledge, commerce etc) (a
      Council of Europe expert group is right now looking into possible
      new mechanisms for addressing such cross-border issues)

    *

      Globally democratic regulation in public interest of global
      digital corporations that have huge monopolies across the globe,
      and have a defining impact on our emerging social systems,
      including in the areas of knowledge, media, market, politics and
      culture (due to their immense global power, national regulations,
      especially in less powerful countries, have little leverage over
      these hegemonic digital corporations)

    *

      Globally democratic political supervision of technical governance
      of Critical Internet Resources, without replacing/subverting the
      current governance systems (which includes domain name systems, IP
      allocation, root servers, security systems at the root level etc)


Parminder




On Sunday 05 December 2010 01:30 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder
> to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples:
>
> - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in
> trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime.
> - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National
> Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT)
> - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the
> UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term
> of services found. (e.g. Brazil example).
> - Measurement of the impact of IG on development.
>
> I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global
> internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing
> mechanisms.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>  wrote:
>    
>> Hi All
>>
>> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'
>>
>> Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that
>>
>> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner."
>>
>> Parminder
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
>> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
>>
>> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
>> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
>> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
>> age.
>>
>> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
>> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
>> enquiries.
>>
>> .
>>
>> Ian Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso"<ca at cafonso.ca>
>> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
>> To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>> Cc: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
>> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
>> Lieberman and Bezos :)
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
>> Liebermann....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
>> service, below.
>>
>> Lee
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>> To: ip
>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: Sam<samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>
>> This may be of interest to the list.
>>
>> Sam
>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d
>> ns
>> -everydns
>>
>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>   says attack against leaks site endangered
>> other
>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>>
>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>   address.
>> Photograph: Joe
>> Raedle/Getty Images
>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>>
>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>>
>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>> them.
>>
>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>>
>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>> problem."
>>
>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>>
>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>>
>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
>> suffix.
>> However, the
>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>>
>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>   domain name, which only surfaced on
>> Friday morning,
>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>> still being done by everydns.
>>
>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>> relationship with the website."
>>
>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>>
>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>>
>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>   ­ also
>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>> web services director, this morning launched
>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>   ­ a
>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>>
>> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>> service said that
>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>> Thursday).
>>
>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>>
>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>   said that the attacks ­ which have been
>> going on all
>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>   infrastructure, which enables
>> access
>> to almost
>> 500,000 other websites".
>>
>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>   website has
>> resulted from its
>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>>
>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>>
>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>>
>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>>
>> Amazon said:
>>
>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>>
>> It noted that:
>>
>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>>
>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>> Iraq.
>>
>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>>
>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>    |
>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-8
>> 6e
>> d04cc>   Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115
>> -e
>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>> <http://www.listbox.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
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/12afcac9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  6 08:44:28 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:44:28 +0100
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <4CFCDFA1.1090701@itforchange.net>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com> <4CFCDFA1.1090701@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTincd038pEP_kOf63FqBtA2Q8gg3F_9x18B9U-0e@mail.gmail.com>

I am particularly gives rise to concern by the following:
"*Globally democratic regulation in public interest of global digital
corporations that have huge monopolies across the globe, and have a defining
impact on our emerging social systems, including in the areas of knowledge,
media, market, politics and culture (due to their immense global power,
national regulations, especially in less powerful countries, have little
leverage over these hegemonic digital corporations)*"

For developing countries, we experience the power of these digital business
because the countries do not participate in the development of search
technology solutions tailored to their context.

Baudouin



2010/12/6 parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>

>  Thanks Miguel for the list. Some of these overlap with IT for Change list
> in its submission.  We have mentioned a dev agenda in IG in rather more
> elaborate terms, but I agree, your wording of the dev agenda should be good
> enough for a start.
>
> Submitting for the lists consideration, a couple of more points. If
> necessary, shorter and simpler language can be used for each.
>
>
>    -
>
>    Global Internet traffic flows – in terms of interconnection systems as
>    well as globally open architecture of such flows (global net neutrality,
>    also including global policy frameworks for downstream net neutrality)
>     -
>
>    Resolving specific cross-border Internet related issues (content,
>    security, privacy, crime, access to knowledge, commerce etc) (a Council of
>    Europe expert group is right now looking into possible new mechanisms for
>    addressing such cross-border issues)
>     -
>
>    Globally democratic regulation in public interest of global digital
>    corporations that have huge monopolies across the globe, and have a defining
>    impact on our emerging social systems, including in the areas of knowledge,
>    media, market, politics and culture (due to their immense global power,
>    national regulations, especially in less powerful countries, have little
>    leverage over these hegemonic digital corporations)
>     -
>
>    Globally democratic political supervision of technical governance of
>    Critical Internet Resources, without replacing/subverting the current
>    governance systems (which includes domain name systems, IP allocation, root
>    servers, security systems at the root level etc)
>
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday 05 December 2010 01:30 PM, Miguel Alcaine wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder
> to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples:
>
> - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in
> trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime.
> - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National
> Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT)
> - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the
> UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term
> of services found. (e.g. Brazil example).
> - Measurement of the impact of IG on development.
>
> I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global
> internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing
> mechanisms.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
>  Hi All
>
> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'
>
> Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that
>
> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution, but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic, inclusive and fully-participative manner."
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to shut
> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
>
> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage issues,
> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting unilaterally to
> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the digital
> age.
>
> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted principles is
> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
> enquiries.
>
> .
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> <ca at cafonso.ca>
> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables" between
> Lieberman and Bezos :)
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy grounds,
> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from Joe
> Liebermann....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org><governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re their
> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating terms of
> service, below.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Sam <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com> <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net> <dave at farber.net>>
> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> This may be of interest to the list.
>
> Samhttps://www.mensa.org/user/6020http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-off-net-d
> ns
> -everydns
>
> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net> <http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site endangered
> other
> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
> Charles Arthur and Josh Hallidayguardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk> <http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010 07.54 GMT
>
> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org> <http://wikileaks.org>  address.
> Photograph: Joe
> Raedle/Getty Images
> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>
> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>
> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
> them.
>
> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch> <http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>
> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
> problem."
>
> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>
> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>
> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch> <http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
> suffix.
> However, the
> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>
> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch> <http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only surfaced on
> Friday morning,
> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
> still being done by everydns.
>
> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
> relationship with the website."
>
> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>
> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>
> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de> <http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  ­ also
> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
> web services director, this morning launchedWikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk> <http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  ­ a
> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>
> In a statement on its website, the free everydns.net<http://everydns.net> <http://everydns.net>
> service said that
> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had brokeneverydns.net<http://everydns.net> <http://everydns.net>'s terms of
> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
> Thursday).
>
> DNS services translate a website name, such asguardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk> <http://guardian.co.uk>, into
> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so thathttp://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net> <http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks ­ which have been
> going on all
> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net> <http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which enables
> access
> to almost
> 500,000 other websites".
>
> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org> <http://wikileaks.org>  website has
> resulted from its
> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>
> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>
> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>
> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>
> Amazon said:
>
> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>
> It noted that:
>
> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>
> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
> Iraq.
>
> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
> further donations to "keep us strong".
>
> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-8
> 6e
> d04cc> <https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115
> -e
> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D> <https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]<http://www.listbox.com> <http://www.listbox.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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/d9576565/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Mon Dec  6 09:17:04 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:17:04 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [At-Large] ICANN blog : US Government Opposes
 Launch of New gTLD Program in Cartagena
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimgBm2RXcwL_vxm+WYt3dRqjX3_rNDci86HAJ1D@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimgBm2RXcwL_vxm+WYt3dRqjX3_rNDci86HAJ1D@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinALGsL_5j7V1S9t00F=4k5YZ=CsB=NY=bwa+i=@mail.gmail.com>

Some of you must have noticed this already, but interesting.

Those in Cartagena now, please follow this up.

thanks,

izumi


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <admin at ttcsweb.org>
Date: 2010/12/3
Subject: [At-Large] ICANN blog : US Government Opposes Launch of New
gTLD Program in Cartagena
To: LACRALO discussion list <lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org>,
At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>


http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/us-government-opposes-launch-of-new-gtld-program-in-cartagena/
US DoC letter : http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf

US Government Opposes Launch of New gTLD Program in Cartagena
by Rod Beckstrom

We appreciate the many comments received so far on the draft Applicant
Guidebook in its five full versions. We thank the community and all
who contributed for their engagement, thoughts and opinions during the
course of this process.

One of the most recent comments we have received is a letter today
from the US Department of Commerce (DoC).

ICANN’s success and legitimacy derive from the multistakeholder model,
the basis on which new gTLD policy was developed. The policy process
decision to undertake this program was approved by the GNSO Council in
2007 and adopted by ICANN’s board of directors in 2008.

In the Affirmation of Commitments, the US government and ICANN
reconfirmed our mutual commitment to the multistakeholder model. ICANN
confirmed our commitment to solicit public comment and to hear all
voices.

As with all contributions, ICANN will give DoC’s comments careful
consideration as part of the implementation of the GNSO policy.

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

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

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 Dec  6 11:10:08 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 11:10:08 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

What is missing from Parminder's list: you need more than "globally democratic" and "fully participative," you also need agreed principles which _limit_ the authority of majoritarian or "participatory" institutions in ways that secure individual rights and freedoms.

Democracy without that is nothing more than another form of tyranny - especially given the vastly heterogeneous nature of the global polity, in which various coalitions and factions can gang up on others. Therefore I agree with Miquel that we need something akin to an Internet charter, or at least to reaffirm existing rights under the ICCPR, and to specifically call attention to the fact that end users have rights that any form of global collaboration cannot transgress.

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:01 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
>
> Dear all,
>
> It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder
> to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples:
>
> - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in
> trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime.
> - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National
> Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT)
> - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the
> UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term
> of services found. (e.g. Brazil example).
> - Measurement of the impact of IG on development.
>
> I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global
> internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing
> mechanisms.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All
> >
> > A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also
> since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet
> related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'
> >
> > Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that
> >
> > "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet
> governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution,
> but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what
> institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important
> Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic,
> inclusive and fully-participative manner."
> >
> > Parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> >
> > The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to
> shut
> > down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
> >
> > In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage
> issues,
> > corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting
> unilaterally to
> > preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the
> digital
> > age.
> >
> > This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted
> principles is
> > one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
> > enquiries.
> >
> > .
> >
> > Ian Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca>
> > Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
> > To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> > Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> > Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> >
> > Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
> > to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables"
> between
> > Lieberman and Bezos :)
> >
> > --c.a.
> >
> > On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
> >
> >
> > Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy
> grounds,
> > and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from
> Joe
> > Liebermann....
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> > Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
> > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> > Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> >
> > Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re
> their
> > cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating
> terms of
> > service, below.
> >
> > Lee
> > ________________________________________
> > From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
> > To: ip
> > Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Sam
> <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
> > Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
> > To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
> > Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
> >
> > This may be of interest to the list.
> >
> > Sam
> > https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
> > http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-
> off-net-d
> > ns
> > -everydns
> >
> > WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
> > Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site
> endangered
> > other
> > customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
> > Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
> > guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010
> 07.54 GMT
> >
> > WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>
> address.
> > Photograph: Joe
> > Raedle/Getty Images
> > The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
> > WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
> > Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
> >
> > The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
> > this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
> >
> > Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
> > security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
> > sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
> > them.
> >
> > On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
> > documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
> > world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
> > address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
> > WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
> >
> > Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
> > "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
> > problem."
> >
> > "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
> > alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
> >
> > The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
> > at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
> > prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
> > cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
> >
> > The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
> > a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
> > suffix.
> > However, the
> > new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
> > has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
> >
> > The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only
> surfaced on
> > Friday morning,
> > is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
> > still being done by everydns.
> >
> > Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
> > data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
> > diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
> > company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
> > from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
> > Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
> > called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
> > relationship with the website."
> >
> > Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
> > wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
> > applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
> >
> > Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
> > Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
> > been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
> > pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
> >
> > A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
> > wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  ­ also
> > appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
> > California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
> > names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
> > web services director, this morning launched
> > Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  ­ a
> > "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
> >
> > In a statement on its website, the free
> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
> > service said that
> > the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
> > ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
> > site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
> > That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
> > everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
> > service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
> > Thursday).
> >
> > DNS services translate a website name, such as
> > guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
> > machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
> > http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
> > site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
> > provided one via Twitter or other means.
> >
> > Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks ­ which have
> been
> > going on all
> > week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
> > more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
> > of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which
> enables
> > access
> > to almost
> > 500,000 other websites".
> >
> > WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
> > said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>
> website has
> > resulted from its
> > failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
> >
> > The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
> > determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
> > of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
> > of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
> >
> > US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
> > any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
> > of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
> > last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
> > pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
> > the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
> > withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
> >
> > In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
> > inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
> >
> > Amazon said:
> >
> > "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
> > have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
> > following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
> > example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
> > that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
> > that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
> > will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
> > WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
> > classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
> > volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
> > could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
> > they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
> >
> > It noted that:
> >
> > "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
> > quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
> > data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
> > terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
> >
> > But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
> > the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
> > WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
> > Iraq.
> >
> > Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
> > DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
> > services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
> > further donations to "keep us strong".
> >
> > Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
> >
> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=89231
> 15-8
> > 6e
> > d04cc>  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
> >
> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=892
> 3115
> > -e
> > 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
> > [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
> > <http://www.listbox.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
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 parminder at itforchange.net  Mon Dec  6 11:48:47 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 22:18:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>	<4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net> <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net>



On Monday 06 December 2010 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> What is missing from Parminder's list: you need more than "globally democratic" and "fully participative," you also need agreed principles which _limit_ the authority of majoritarian or "participatory" institutions in ways that secure individual rights and freedoms.
>
> Democracy without that is nothing more than another form of tyranny - especially given the vastly heterogeneous nature of the global polity, in which various coalitions and factions can gang up on others. Therefore I agree with Miquel that we need something akin to an Internet charter, or at least to reaffirm existing rights under the ICCPR, and to specifically call attention to the fact that end users have rights that any form of global collaboration cannot transgress.
>    

Milton

One, a call to frame such principles in form of a framework convention 
on the Internet, is a part of our input to the EC process, and so, yes, 
i agree completely. New institutional developments should be framed by 
and within codified principles.

Secondly,, i have always thought that terms like democracy and even 
'participatory' very clearly, and centrally, include all the needed 
checks and balances against majoritarianism. Why do you suspect 
otherwise. I do not understand why centuries old concepts and ideas like 
democracy are suddenly opened up to such unjustified criticism or 
critiques, as if something quite novel is being discussed or proposed.

As for global policy being very heterogeneous

(1) if we are to unite economically, we will need to make considerable 
progress politically as well.... the choice comes together

(2) India has one seventh of the world's population, and is very very 
diverse.. .with a lot of real dangers of majoritarianism, we deal with 
them 'through democracy' not by putting 'riders to democracy' as you 
seem to be doing.... I take democracy to a political system which 
ensures rights of all people protecting diversities, and with all the 
needed checks against all kinds of dominances, including numbers based 
majoritarianism, which seem to be most bothering you :). Yes, indeed the 
sheer number of poor people in the world is scary :).

Parminder





> --MM
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
>> request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine
>> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:01 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
>> Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder
>> to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples:
>>
>> - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in
>> trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime.
>> - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National
>> Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT)
>> - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the
>> UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term
>> of services found. (e.g. Brazil example).
>> - Measurement of the impact of IG on development.
>>
>> I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global
>> internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing
>> mechanisms.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Miguel
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder<parminder at itforchange.net>
>> wrote:
>>      
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also
>>>        
>> since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet
>> related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'
>>      
>>> Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that
>>>
>>> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet
>>>        
>> governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution,
>> but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what
>> institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important
>> Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic,
>> inclusive and fully-participative manner."
>>      
>>> Parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>
>>> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to
>>>        
>> shut
>>      
>>> down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
>>>
>>> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage
>>>        
>> issues,
>>      
>>> corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting
>>>        
>> unilaterally to
>>      
>>> preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the
>>>        
>> digital
>>      
>>> age.
>>>
>>> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted
>>>        
>> principles is
>>      
>>> one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
>>> enquiries.
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> Ian Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Carlos A. Afonso"<ca at cafonso.ca>
>>> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
>>> To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter<ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
>>> Cc: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>
>>> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
>>> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables"
>>>        
>> between
>>      
>>> Lieberman and Bezos :)
>>>
>>> --c.a.
>>>
>>> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy
>>>        
>> grounds,
>>      
>>> and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from
>>>        
>> Joe
>>      
>>> Liebermann....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
>>> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org"<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
>>> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>
>>> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re
>>>        
>> their
>>      
>>> cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating
>>>        
>> terms of
>>      
>>> service, below.
>>>
>>> Lee
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
>>> To: ip
>>> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>
>>> Begin forwarded message:
>>>
>>> From: Sam
>>>        
>> <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>>      
>>> Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
>>> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>>
>>> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>>>
>>> This may be of interest to the list.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>> https://www.mensa.org/user/6020
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-
>>>        
>> off-net-d
>>      
>>> ns
>>> -everydns
>>>
>>> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>   says attack against leaks site
>>>        
>> endangered
>>      
>>> other
>>> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
>>> Charles Arthur and Josh Halliday
>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010
>>>        
>> 07.54 GMT
>>      
>>> WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>
>>>        
>> address.
>>      
>>> Photograph: Joe
>>> Raedle/Getty Images
>>> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
>>> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
>>> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>>>
>>> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
>>> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>>>
>>> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
>>> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
>>> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
>>> them.
>>>
>>> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
>>> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
>>> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
>>> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
>>> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>>>
>>> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
>>> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
>>> problem."
>>>
>>> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
>>> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>>>
>>> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
>>> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
>>> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
>>> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>>>
>>> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
>>> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
>>> suffix.
>>> However, the
>>> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
>>> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>>>
>>> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch>   domain name, which only
>>>        
>> surfaced on
>>      
>>> Friday morning,
>>> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
>>> still being done by everydns.
>>>
>>> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
>>> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
>>> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
>>> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
>>> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
>>> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
>>> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
>>> relationship with the website."
>>>
>>> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
>>> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
>>> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>>>
>>> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
>>> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
>>> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
>>> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>>>
>>> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­
>>> wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de>   ­ also
>>> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
>>> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
>>> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
>>> web services director, this morning launched
>>> Wikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk>   ­ a
>>> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>>>
>>> In a statement on its website, the free
>>>        
>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>
>>      
>>> service said that
>>> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
>>> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
>>> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
>>> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had broken
>>> everydns.net<http://everydns.net>'s terms of
>>> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
>>> Thursday).
>>>
>>> DNS services translate a website name, such as
>>> guardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk>, into
>>> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so that
>>> http://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
>>> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
>>> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>>>
>>> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net>   said that the attacks ­ which have
>>>        
>> been
>>      
>>> going on all
>>> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
>>> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
>>> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net>   infrastructure, which
>>>        
>> enables
>>      
>>> access
>>> to almost
>>> 500,000 other websites".
>>>
>>> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
>>> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org>
>>>        
>> website has
>>      
>>> resulted from its
>>> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>>>
>>> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
>>> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
>>> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
>>> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>>>
>>> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
>>> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
>>> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
>>> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
>>> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
>>> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
>>> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>>>
>>> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
>>> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>>>
>>> Amazon said:
>>>
>>> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
>>> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
>>> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
>>> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
>>> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
>>> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
>>> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
>>> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
>>> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
>>> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
>>> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
>>> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>>>
>>> It noted that:
>>>
>>> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
>>> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
>>> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
>>> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>>>
>>> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
>>> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
>>> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
>>> Iraq.
>>>
>>> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
>>> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
>>> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
>>> further donations to "keep us strong".
>>>
>>> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]
>>> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>    |
>>>
>>>        
>> Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=89231
>> 15-8
>>      
>>> 6e
>>> d04cc>   Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>>>
>>>        
>> Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=892
>> 3115
>>      
>>> -e
>>> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
>>> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]
>>> <http://www.listbox.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
>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>        governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>        governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/b3bcc6f2/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  6 13:34:55 2010
From: daniel at digsys.bg (Daniel Kalchev)
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:34:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>	<AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>	<1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>	<AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <AANLkTi=fP5aWj7VxVZ86E5r9Q5cfYtct2mBJrNdZ4pPK@mail.gmail.com> <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org> <0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia>
Message-ID: <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg>

There is not much point in pointing fingers. Much of the damage has been 
done to both the Bulgarian application (Government's reputation) and to 
ICANN (process quality, suspiction of double standards). As it was 
noted, we can all learn from mistakes and the time now is appropriate to 
correct the issues.

In my opinion, the fact that there is some shielding of process flow 
from the non-involved parties is not bad. Bad is the lack of defined 
evaulation criteria and the total lack of wider/public consultations in 
the evaluation stages (not decision stages) of the process. Another bad 
practice is the lack of detailed explanation after the fact. It is only 
logocal, that refused applications will be reviewed by external parties 
and those parties may find lack of diligency on part of the 
staff/evaluation groups. What then?
If there is no procedure for explaining/justifying the opinion or 
decision, there will always be the doubt that someone has done wrong. 
And those concerns grow with time until at some point trust breaks.

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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Mon Dec  6 14:08:41 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 17:08:41 -0200
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>
	<AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinr1KLB9dW63dbUbCesXxs1hUuDE0aTYKmd1=sM@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with what has been said and would have only three comments to make
for now:

- The last part of IT for Change´s statement is important. We should include
something similar:

"It is unlikely that an open consultation can reach any conclusions on such
a range of complex issues. It will therefore be most appropriate to set up a
CSTD Working Group to examine the various options for taking the process of
enhanced cooperation forward, so that important global Internet related
public policy issues can be properly addressed."

- I agree that we try to point out some topics, such as the ones suggested,
and be more concrete. But we should also make clear that EC is not only
about what is *not* being addressed, but it is also (and maybe mostly) about
what is being *insufficiently* addressed or coordinated. This insufficient
coordination usually takes place either because organizations are working in
their silos or because of plurilateral attempts of forum shifting.


-The discussions about the topics that could be placed under EC should move
forward together with a discussion about the mechanisms of EC, because both
issues are intertwined.


 Mentioning principles (democratic and participatory mechanisms) may be
enough for now, but sooner or later we will need to comment on how these
principles can be translated into real mechanisms (existing or to be
created). There is no pressing urgency, but let´s continue mulling over
this.


Best,

Marília


On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 2:48 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Monday 06 December 2010 09:40 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> What is missing from Parminder's list: you need more than "globally democratic" and "fully participative," you also need agreed principles which _limit_ the authority of majoritarian or "participatory" institutions in ways that secure individual rights and freedoms.
>
> Democracy without that is nothing more than another form of tyranny - especially given the vastly heterogeneous nature of the global polity, in which various coalitions and factions can gang up on others. Therefore I agree with Miquel that we need something akin to an Internet charter, or at least to reaffirm existing rights under the ICCPR, and to specifically call attention to the fact that end users have rights that any form of global collaboration cannot transgress.
>
>
>
> Milton
>
> One, a call to frame such principles in form of a framework convention on
> the Internet, is a part of our input to the EC process, and so, yes, i agree
> completely. New institutional developments should be framed by and within
> codified principles.
>
> Secondly,, i have always thought that terms like democracy and even
> 'participatory' very clearly, and centrally, include all the needed checks
> and balances against majoritarianism. Why do you suspect otherwise. I do not
> understand why centuries old concepts and ideas like democracy are suddenly
> opened up to such unjustified criticism or critiques, as if something quite
> novel is being discussed or proposed.
>
> As for global policy being very heterogeneous
>
> (1) if we are to unite economically, we will need to make considerable
> progress politically as well.... the choice comes together
>
> (2) India has one seventh of the world's population, and is very very
> diverse.. .with a lot of real dangers of majoritarianism, we deal with them
> 'through democracy' not by putting 'riders to democracy' as you seem to be
> doing.... I take democracy to a political system which ensures rights of all
> people protecting diversities, and with all the needed checks against all
> kinds of dominances, including numbers based majoritarianism, which seem to
> be most bothering you :). Yes, indeed the sheer number of poor people in the
> world is scary :).
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
>
>
>  --MM
>
>
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance <governance>-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Miguel Alcaine
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 3:01 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder
> Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
>
> Dear all,
>
> It is convenient to have an answer like the one suggested by Parminder
> to the question launched by DESA, but it needs to offer examples:
>
> - Global collaboration - from voluntary to legally binding - in
> trans-border procedures needed to combat cyber-crime.
> - Universal coverage of countries and territories by CERT and National
> Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT)
> - Creation of an Internet Charter of Principles, consistent with the
> UN Charter, aiming to become origin principles for the distinct term
> of services found. (e.g. Brazil example).
> - Measurement of the impact of IG on development.
>
> I am sure people on this list are able to add other examples of global
> internet related policy issues not being addressed by existing
> mechanisms.
>
> Best,
>
> Miguel
>
> On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 4:01 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> <parminder at itforchange.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>  Hi All
>
> A specific proposal for the IGC for co-oordinators attention... Also
>
>
>  since the new communication from UNDESA asks for 'what global Internet
> related policy issues are not being addressed by current mechanisms'
>
>
>  Should we add to our EC statement, one line to the effect that
>
> "There are numerous pressing trans-border issues of Internet
>
>
>  governance and Internet related policies that require urgent resolution,
> but are not be addressed by existing mechanisms. We need to examine what
> institutional mechanisms will be able to address these important
> Internet related public policy issues in a globally democratic,
> inclusive and fully-participative manner."
>
>
>  Parminder
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday 05 December 2010 02:20 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> The real issue is that some governments around the world are trying to
>
>
>  shut
>
>
>  down an organization that helps whistleblowers publish information.
>
> In the absence of any policy regime covering such internet usage
>
>
>  issues,
>
>
>  corporations are bowing to government pressure and/or acting
>
>
>  unilaterally to
>
>
>  preserve government secrecy and the way things used to be before the
>
>
>  digital
>
>
>  age.
>
> This absence of a policy regime and any universally accepted
>
>
>  principles is
>
>
>  one of the internet governance issues we should raise in the current
> enquiries.
>
> .
>
> Ian Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at cafonso.ca> <ca at cafonso.ca>
> Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:35:35 -0200
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Cc: Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> Yes, and we believe in fairy tales and in Santa Claus. :) I would like
> to see in Wikileaks in the near future the exchange of "cables"
>
>
>  between
>
>
>  Lieberman and Bezos :)
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 12/04/2010 06:24 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>
> Sure, sure - and paypal just denied wikileaks donations on policy
>
>
>  grounds,
>
>
>  and everydns shut the site because of usage issues after a call from
>
>
>  Joe
>
>
>  Liebermann....
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Reply-To:<governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Lee W McKnight<lmcknigh at syr.edu> <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 14:54:57 -0500
> To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" <governance at lists.cpsr.org><governance at lists.cpsr.org> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> Since we're talking Vittorio's holiday shopping...Amazon's denial re
>
>
>  their
>
>
>  cessation of service w Wikileaks was not politics but for violating
>
>
>  terms of
>
>
>  service, below.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:11 AM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] Fwd: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Sam
>
>
>  <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com<mailto:samwaltz.groups at gmail.com> <samwaltz.groups at gmail.com>>
>
>
>  Date: December 3, 2010 9:18:23 PM EST
> To: Dave Farber IP<dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net> <dave at farber.net>>
> Subject: Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
>
> This may be of interest to the list.
>
> Samhttps://www.mensa.org/user/6020http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-knocked-
>
>
>  off-net-d
>
>
>  ns
> -everydns
>
> WikiLeaks fights to stay online after US company withdraws domain name
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net> <http://Everydns.net>  says attack against leaks site
>
>
>  endangered
>
>
>  other
> customers' service ­ effectively pushing site off the web
> Charles Arthur and Josh Hallidayguardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk> <http://guardian.co.uk>,     Friday 3 December 2010
>
>
>  07.54 GMT
>
>
>  WikiLeaks was removed from its wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org> <http://wikileaks.org>
>
>  address.
>
>
>  Photograph: Joe
> Raedle/Getty Images
> The US was today accused of opening up a dramatic new front against
> WikiLeaks, effectively "killing" its web address just days after
> Amazon pulled the site from its servers following political pressure.
>
> The whistleblowers' website went offline for the third time in a week
> this morning, in the biggest threat to its online presence yet.
>
> Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate's committee on homeland
> security, earlier this week called for any organisation helping
> sustain WikiLeaks to "immediately terminate" its relationship with
> them.
>
> On Friday morning, WikiLeaks and the cache of secret diplomatic
> documents that have proved to be a scourge for governments around the
> world were only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS
> address. The site later re-emerged with a Swiss domain,
> WikiLeaks.ch<http://WikiLeaks.ch> <http://WikiLeaks.ch>.
>
> Julian Assange this morning said the development is an example of the
> "privatisation of state censorship" in the US and is a "serious
> problem."
>
> "These attacks will not stop our mission, but should be setting off
> alarm bells about the rule of law in the United States," he warned.
>
> The California-based internet hosting provider that dropped WikiLeaks
> at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST Thursday), Everydns, says it did so to
> prevent its other 500,000 customers of being affected by the intense
> cyber attacks targeted at WikiLeaks.
>
> The site this morning said it had "move[d] to Switzerland", announcing
> a new domain name ­ wikileaks.ch<http://wikileaks.ch> <http://wikileaks.ch>, with the Swiss
> suffix.
> However, the
> new address still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks
> has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider.
>
> The Wikileaks.ch<http://Wikileaks.ch> <http://Wikileaks.ch>  domain name, which only
>
>
>  surfaced on
>
>
>  Friday morning,
> is being served by the Swiss Pirate Party. And the routing to it is
> still being done by everydns.
>
> Late yesterday evening Tableau Software, a company which published
> data visualisations, pulled one of its images picturing the WikiLeaks
> diplomatic cables at the request of Senator Lieberman. Writing on the
> company's blog, Elissa Fink said: "Our decision to remove the data
> from our servers came in response to a public request by Senator Joe
> Lieberman, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, when he
> called for organisations hosting WikiLeaks to terminate their
> relationship with the website."
>
> Mark Stephens, the London-based lawyer acting on behalf of Assange,
> wrote on Twitter after the shutdown: "Pressure appears to have been
> applied to close the WikiLeaks domain name."
>
> Andre Rickardsson, an expert on computer security at Sweden's Bitsec
> Consulting, told Reuters: "I don't believe for a second that this has
> been done by everydns themselves. I think they've been under
> pressure," he said, apparently referring to US authorities.
>
> A new Germany-based WikiLeaks domain ­wikileaks.dd19.de<http://wikileaks.dd19.de> <http://wikileaks.dd19.de>  ­ also
> appeared on Friday morning, with its data apparently hosted in
> California. People have also taken to setting up alternative domain
> names that point to the WikiLeaks address. Robin Fenwick, a UK-based
> web services director, this morning launchedWikileeks.org.uk<http://Wikileeks.org.uk> <http://Wikileeks.org.uk>  ­ a
> "joke domain" that points to the WikiLeaks DNS address.
>
> In a statement on its website, the free
>
>
>  everydns.net<http://everydns.net> <http://everydns.net>
>
>  service said that
> the "distributed denial of service" (DDOS) attacks by unknown hackers
> ­ who are trying to knock WikiLeaks off the net ­ meant that the leaks
> site was interfering with the service being provided to other users.
> That in turn meant that WikiLeaks had brokeneverydns.net<http://everydns.net> <http://everydns.net>'s terms of
> service, and it cut the site off at 3am GMT on Friday (10PM EST
> Thursday).
>
> DNS services translate a website name, such asguardian.co.uk<http://guardian.co.uk> <http://guardian.co.uk>, into
> machine-readable "IP quads" ­ in that case 77.91.249.30, so thathttp://77.91.249.30 will show the Guardian site. If the DNS fails, the
> site is only reachable via IP address ­ but WikiLeaks has not yet
> provided one via Twitter or other means.
>
> Everydns.net<http://Everydns.net> <http://Everydns.net>  said that the attacks ­ which have
>
>
>  been
>
>
>  going on all
> week, and led the site to temporarily host its services on Amazon's
> more resilient EC2 "cloud computing" service ­ "threaten the stability
> of the EveryDNS.net<http://EveryDNS.net> <http://EveryDNS.net>  infrastructure, which
>
>
>  enables
>
>
>  access
> to almost
> 500,000 other websites".
>
> WikiLeaks was given 24 hours' notice of the termination, and everydns
> said: "Any downtime of the wikileaks.org<http://wikileaks.org> <http://wikileaks.org>
>
>  website has
>
>
>  resulted from its
> failure to use another hosted DNS service provider."
>
> The move comes after several days of WikiLeaks coming under a
> determined DDOS attack, apparently from hackers friendly to the point
> of view of the US government, which has disparaged the site's leaking
> of thousands of US diplomatic cables.
>
> US companies have also come under intense political pressure to remove
> any connection to, or support for, WikiLeaks. Amazon ended its hosting
> of the cables on its EC2 cloud computer service earlier this week, but
> last night insisted in a blogpost that its decision was not due to
> pressure from Senator Joe Lieberman, who has called for the removal of
> the data ­ and who has influenced at least one other US company to
> withdraw support for WikiLeaks data.
>
> In a blogpost late on Thursday, Amazon said reports that government
> inquiries prompted it to remove the data were "inaccurate".
>
> Amazon said:
>
> "[Amazon Web Services] does not pre-screen its customers, but it does
> have terms of service that must be followed. WikiLeaks was not
> following them. There were several parts they were violating. For
> example, our terms of service state that "you represent and warrant
> that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to the contentŠ
> that use of the content you supply does not violate this policy and
> will not cause injury to any person or entity". It's clear that
> WikiLeaks doesn't own or otherwise control all the rights to this
> classified content. Further, it is not credible that the extraordinary
> volume of 250,000 classified documents that WikiLeaks is publishing
> could have been carefully redacted in such a way as to ensure that
> they weren't putting innocent people in jeopardy."
>
> It noted that:
>
> "When companies or people go about securing and storing large
> quantities of data that isn't rightfully theirs, and publishing this
> data without ensuring it won't injure others, it's a violation of our
> terms of service, and folks need to go operate elsewhere."
>
> But as commentators have pointed out, that stance is contradicted by
> the fact that Amazon has previously hosted the "war logs" from
> WikiLeaks which contained data about the US wars in Afghanistan and
> Iraq.
>
> Connecting to WikiLeaks is presently not possible until it gets a new
> DNS service. WikiLeaks itself said on Twitter that the ending of DNS
> services was allegedly due to "claimed mass attacks" and called for
> further donations to "keep us strong".
>
> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   |
>
>
>
>  Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=89231
> 15-8
>
>
>  6e
> d04cc>  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe
>
>
>
>  Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=892
> 3115
>
>
>  -e
> 899f1f0&post_id=20101204041321:BCF412F2-FF86-11DF-B99D-6A92F559ED1D>
> [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]<http://www.listbox.com> <http://www.listbox.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
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/416e5bfa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Mon Dec  6 23:09:29 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 23:09:29 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Right:

"If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance
of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing
everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement."

We're making some progress.

Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting as a next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in the right direction. 

The language from the ITforchange EC submission could get ball rolling. 

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Roland Perry [roland at internetpolicyagency.com]
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 3:45 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs

In message
<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5 at suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,
at 16:58:51 on Sun, 5 Dec 2010, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> writes
>First,
>
>Since I seem to be taking the unpopular positions of late - allow me to
>defend the ITU's honor : )
...
> Anyway, point is in spite of ITU's interminable processes, they work
>reasonably well for...190 countries; and lots of users.

I wasn't intending to knock the ITU, although it's a spectator sport for
many. I try to "walk a mile in their shoes" before criticising anyone,
and in this case have attended about 20 full days of ITU meetings and
conferences in person, and the same again by remote participation.

>Leaving aside for now how they may be improved in a multistakeholder
>manner.

There are improvements to transparency which could be made, but there
are also funding issues. But mindful that it's a membership
organisation, and everyone has a government close at hand which is a
member, we are all quite close to the process if we want to be.

>Now back to the question at hand, can we do better than that for global
>democratic processes around Internet governance? Of course.  See
>there's these Internet protocols which make it trivially easy to go
>from local to global...ok yeah more than that is needed but scalability
>is NOT the problem.

That's a bit like saying it would be easy for everyone to get into the
governance of air traffic control, because planes fly everywhere. But
that's an illusion.

>Being afraid to even broach the subject is the surest way to make sure
>it never happens.
>
>So definitely that should be a talking point for David A., however it
>is wordsmithed between now and 12.14, starting from Parminder's pretty
>reasonable draft.

If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance
of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing
everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement.
--
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
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  7 00:59:15 2010
From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah)
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 21:59:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks Domain Revoked?
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikF2svm+ohsmDO7Kk_=V36cv3uG4yWv-hStKoc7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4CFAC171.9000006@gmail.com> <AANLkTimXpGbjPnMgo0pYqXncVsT6RsR6fsYx5QNbr2NO@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikF2svm+ohsmDO7Kk_=V36cv3uG4yWv-hStKoc7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <434802.84343.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com>



Wikileaks is currently mirrored on 729 sites (updated 2010-12-06 22:32 GMT)
http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html'

 

________________________________
From: Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com>
Sent: Sun, 5 December, 2010 21:32:28
Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks Domain Revoked?

I'm about to renew some domain names, and if the Terms of Service (to
date, unknown to me in this particular), happen to contain the term
apparently relied upon by everydns that being subject to a DDOS attack
(a criminal act) is a violation by ME of their terms of service, I'm
going to hold off on renewing and tell them why.

I realize it's possible all other hosts and sellers of domain names
might have the same language somewhere, especially with legal
boilerplate language being such as it is and the rampant extent of
copycat lawyers who try to give corporate or ISP clients the most
overbroad and overreaching claimed TOS rights as the lawyer can
possibly dream up.

Still, I have serious doubts about the enforceability of contractual
terms that find ME in violation of terms of service for criminal acts
against me that are the fault of someone else.  Of course, the claimed
TOS violation for not owning all rights in the material is a different
argument.  The lawyer who argued that one was misguided, in my
opinion, for the federal government in the USA claims no copyright.
They would be better off arguing the catchall warranty of "no
violation of state or federal law" in the material posted.  But then
that falls into Assange's argument that censorship has been privatised
and websites taken down for "illegality" without any due process much
less a trial.

Paul Lehto, J.D.

PS  I think it is important, on the general level, to not drop one's
critical analysis of documents just because they claim to have been
"leaked" via Wikileaks or anywhere else.  While many are surely
authentic, with such volumes as are present here, and with documents
readily available electronically to relatively low level military
people, the risk of capture is surely a known risk and therefore there
could easily have been the foresight to have disinformation within
that data stream and not just "information."  To the extent, IF ANY,
that this is true, the wikileaks documents constitute some of the most
effective possible propaganda because they are immediately accepted on
their face as true documents, a glimpse into the "inner workings" of
government, and thus the statements in their pass straight into the
history books (eventually) without question.  If there were a few or a
bunch of such plants, this would be a very clever way to write or
rewrite history.  Do I believe this to be the case?  Not really, but
the single document I saw on WORLD PERCEPTIONS of the USA as an
exporter of terrorism failed to mention the USA government itself as
being PERCEIVED anywhere around the world as such an exporter.  Surely
a CIA analyst is not under political restrictions when speaking about
perceptions in other countries and can't really be quite that dumb or
uninformed, so there's a tiny seed in my mind of doubt about the
authenticity of at least that one single document I saw.  But, at the
end of the day, all I'm advocating is not belief or disbelief in
authenticity, but just retaining one's usual circumspection and
thoughtful analysis and not presuming everything is as it seems.
That's the whole idea in the world of spooks, isn't it? That not all
is exactly as it seems??  ;)  Have fun wrapping your mind around this
if you've even read this!  :)
On 12/5/10, Pouzin (well) <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is there now really a case for ruling the root in the US?
>
> - - -
>
> As we may observe, China and USA (among others) are countries where shutting
> off web sites and revoking domain names result from  government decisions.
>
> This is a wake-up call for clients of US registries such as .com, .net,
> .org, and about all TLD's feeding ICANN cash cow. Luckily open roots are in
> the offing to provide safer harbors.
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4026 (cell)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101206/664ed720/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Dec  7 01:23:02 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 15:23:02 +0900
Subject: [governance] Need your input to CSTD Questionnaire on WSIS
 follow-up
Message-ID: <AANLkTikKwgoEzazZF=90fw-6woPbY52ESNfV2dzGMw66@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,
Here follows is the CSTD Questionnaire on WSIS follow-up.
The deadline for the submission of answers is Dec 14, one week
from now.

We have not found any volunteer so far to prepare the draft text.
If someone can do that, that will be very much appreciated.
But, even we do not have one specific person yet, please send your
inputs answers as reply to this thread to start. Please be specific
to the numbered questions.

We also appreciate if any of your organization, say APC, IT for Change
or any others could share the draft text with us here.

That will work as a good reference.

Thanks,

izumi

-----------------------------
From the CSTD website:

http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5/OS_Letter/

CSTD five-year review of progress concerning WSIS outcomes: request
for contributions

The questions are here:

1. What do you consider to be the most important achievements of the
World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) since 2005?

2a. In what areas do you think most progress has been made in
implementing WSIS outcomes at an international and regional level
during the five years from 2005 to 2010?

2b. What action should be taken to build on this success during the
next five years?

3a. In what areas do you think least progress has been made in
implementing WSIS outcomes at an international and regional level
during these five years?

3b. What action should be taken to address these challenges during the
next five years?

4. Please make any specific comments that you wish to make on WSIS
implementation and follow-up activity as a result of your experience,
either concerning the outcomes of WSIS in general or in specific areas
of WSIS implementation and follow-up.
You may find it useful to refer to the list of chapter headings in the
Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
in responding to this question.

5a. In what WSIS implementation and follow-up activities at an
international or regional level has your organisation been involved?
(Follow-up processes which were agreed at WSIS are described in the
chapter of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society which is
headed “Implementation and Follow-up” (paragraphs 83-122).

5b. Which of these processes do you think have been most successful
during the past five years and why?

5c. What action should be taken to build on this success during the
next five years?

6a. Which WSIS implementation and follow-up processes do you think
have been less successful during the past five years and why?

6b. What action should be taken to address these challenges during the
next five years?

7. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning the
Information Society have emerged or become important since the Summit
ended in 2005, which deserve more attention in the next five years?

8. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
for the implementation of WSIS outcomes during the next five years, up
to the comprehensive review of WSIS in 2015?

9. How, if at all, do you think that WSIS follow-up processes need to
change to take account of changing circumstances and priorities?

10. Please make any further comments below that you think would be
useful to the review.

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

e-mail sent-out from CSTD Secretariat:

Dear colleagues,

The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) is
conducting a five year review of progress made in the implementation
of, and follow-up to, the outcome of the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS).

The purpose of the review is to identify progress made, obstacles and
constraints encountered, as well as actions and initiatives to
overcome them.   The review will also consider how changes in the ICT
landscape may call for increased/reduced attention to certain areas.

To gather inputs for the review, the Chair of the CSTD has initiated
an open consultation with all stakeholders, including UN and other
intergovernmental agencies, governments, ICT sector associations and
agencies, private sector and civil society actors. The principal
issues in this consultation are set out in a questionnaire, which can
be found online at http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5 .  This
questionnaire invites views and contributions concerning:

the experience of WSIS implementation since 2005, at an international
and regional level;
changes which have taken place in the ICT landscape since WSIS; and
priorities  for WSIS implementation and Information Society
development over the next five years.

It also includes space for other comments that contributors may wish to make.

The questionnaire could be filled out directly online at the URL
indicated above.  Responses could also be emailed to Mr. Mongi Hamdi
(wsis5 at unctad.org)

The Chair has invited responses to this questionnaire to be submitted
by 14 December 2010.

Thank you.
CSTD Secretariat

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

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 Dec  7 04:47:48 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 12:47:48 +0300
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> Right:
>
> "If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance
> of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing
> everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement."
>
> We're making some progress.

I see asking for governmental intervention as regressive.

>
> Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting as a next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in the right direction.

If we want to create a centralised, largely (or exclusively)
intergovernmental  "ITU for the Internet" in charge of routing,
content, security, cybercrime, FOI/FOE, IP, CIRs, and the regulation
of all online businesses, then yes, it's a step in the right
direction.

If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the
networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step.

>
> The language from the ITforchange EC submission could get ball rolling.

down a very slippery slope!

-- 
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 hongxueipr at gmail.com  Tue Dec  7 05:23:59 2010
From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:23:59 +0800
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
	<AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
	<1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>
	<AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>
	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<AANLkTi=fP5aWj7VxVZ86E5r9Q5cfYtct2mBJrNdZ4pPK@mail.gmail.com>
	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia>
	<4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimmR8TmeTYwtPiDGkw0XXLSg6WoeSikezmKn1FY@mail.gmail.com>

Has anyone on this list attended "IDN fast track process review" debriefing
at ICANN Cartagena Meeting on December 6? Please refer to
http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15415. Ms. Tina Dam and Mr. Patrick Jones
from ICANN chaired the session.

Tina presented on the following aspects of fast track process:

- Transparency
- Community Support
- Meaningfulness
- Determination of the IDN ccTLD manager
- IDN Tables
- Disputes
- Confusingly similar string
- Objection/re-evaluation rights

Although there were less than 30 participants in the plenary room, the
session brought up interesting information. At the end of the presentation,
there were questions raised on the Internet referred to .бг (.bg) case. The
staff restated that they were not supposed to comment on any specific case.

I then asked a procedural question. Although the String evaluation done by
DNS stability panel (according to their guidelines) is a technical decision,
it is a decision made on behalf of ICANN and has (significant) policy
implication. If such technical determination is not subject to
reconsideration or independent review, wouldn't it be an accountability
issue, as highlighted by ICANN at the opening ceremony?

To my *rough* memory, both replied that fast track process should be
sufficiently simply, without objection or re-evaluation. And, surprisingly
both ICANN staff replied that anyone would be available to reconsideration
or review.

Although I was terribly jetlagged, I assume I heard their reply clearly.
Since I had another meeting and had to leave the conference room immediately
after the question , I did not know if this issue was discussed further.

The audio record at the link is broken unfortunately. If there were anyone
present, could you let me know if I heard the reply wrong?

Regards

Hong





-- 
Dr. Hong Xue
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.iipl.org.cn/ <http://iipl.org.cn/>
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:

> There is not much point in pointing fingers. Much of the damage has been
> done to both the Bulgarian application (Government's reputation) and to
> ICANN (process quality, suspiction of double standards). As it was noted, we
> can all learn from mistakes and the time now is appropriate to correct the
> issues.
>
> In my opinion, the fact that there is some shielding of process flow from
> the non-involved parties is not bad. Bad is the lack of defined evaulation
> criteria and the total lack of wider/public consultations in the evaluation
> stages (not decision stages) of the process. Another bad practice is the
> lack of detailed explanation after the fact. It is only logocal, that
> refused applications will be reviewed by external parties and those parties
> may find lack of diligency on part of the staff/evaluation groups. What
> then?
> If there is no procedure for explaining/justifying the opinion or decision,
> there will always be the doubt that someone has done wrong. And those
> concerns grow with time until at some point trust breaks.
>
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/c9023c27/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Tue Dec  7 08:12:19 2010
From: Lee.HIBBARD at coe.int (HIBBARD Lee)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:12:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Open Council of Europe multi-stakeholder conference to
 examine alternative futures in international Internet-related public
 policy (18-19 April 2011, Strasbourg, France)
Message-ID: <36E35F3FE67D164C987547AB8F3DB8EC07892C76@OBELIX.key.coe.int>


For information:

Open CoE multi-stakeholder conference to examine alternative futures in international Internet-related public policy (18-19 April 2011, Strasbourg, France)

Internet's universality and openness is an essential condition for the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and information globally. Decisions relating to the management of the Internet are likely to have a bearing on fundamental rights and freedoms. The borderless nature of the Internet infrastructure and its decentralised management beg the question of how to address the challenges to its universality and openness through international cooperation. 

Following the IGF discussions in Vilnius, the Council of Europe body responsible for developing media and information society policy has decided to work on a set of Internet governance principles to be included in a political statement of the organisation. It is also examining ways of international cooperation to preserve the ongoing functioning of the Internet.
  
What are the most viable options for international action? Decentralised and unpredictable development of standards by corporations and civil society, lobbies and bureaucrats or traditional treaty making? What architecture for participation and deliberation? Who are the stewards or facilitators of multi-stakeholder dialogue? What are the opportunities and the risks?

How to ensure impact? How to balance efficacy and accountability? What outputs in terms of international policy? How can we construct globally applicable solutions?

The Council of Europe will invite representatives of governments, the private sector and civil society to discuss these issues in an open conference. Invitations will be issued in due course. 
 <<FLYER CI Cartagena.doc>> 
For more information please contact:

Elvana Thaçi
Media and Information Society Division
Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs
Council of Europe
Tel.  + 33 (0) 3 90 21 56 98
Fax. + 33 (0) 3 88 41 27 05
E-mail: elvana.thaci at coe.int
Internet: www.coe.int/media





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/f020e05d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: FLYER CI Cartagena.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 2533376 bytes
Desc: FLYER CI Cartagena.doc
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/f020e05d/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From chad at apc.org  Tue Dec  7 08:27:50 2010
From: chad at apc.org (Chad Lubelsky)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 08:27:50 -0500
Subject: [governance] Need your input to CSTD Questionnaire on WSIS
 follow-up
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikKwgoEzazZF=90fw-6woPbY52ESNfV2dzGMw66@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTikKwgoEzazZF=90fw-6woPbY52ESNfV2dzGMw66@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01A6F0C8-A353-49F2-B9FF-B5AD74F5FB6E@apc.org>

> We also appreciate if any of your organization, say APC, IT for Change
> or any others could share the draft text with us here.

We (APC) are working on our statement and as soon as it's ready we will post to the list.

Cheers,

Chad


> 
> That will work as a good reference.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> izumi
> 
> -----------------------------
> From the CSTD website:
> 
> http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5/OS_Letter/
> 
> CSTD five-year review of progress concerning WSIS outcomes: request
> for contributions
> 
> The questions are here:
> 
> 1. What do you consider to be the most important achievements of the
> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) since 2005?
> 
> 2a. In what areas do you think most progress has been made in
> implementing WSIS outcomes at an international and regional level
> during the five years from 2005 to 2010?
> 
> 2b. What action should be taken to build on this success during the
> next five years?
> 
> 3a. In what areas do you think least progress has been made in
> implementing WSIS outcomes at an international and regional level
> during these five years?
> 
> 3b. What action should be taken to address these challenges during the
> next five years?
> 
> 4. Please make any specific comments that you wish to make on WSIS
> implementation and follow-up activity as a result of your experience,
> either concerning the outcomes of WSIS in general or in specific areas
> of WSIS implementation and follow-up.
> You may find it useful to refer to the list of chapter headings in the
> Geneva Plan of Action and the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society
> in responding to this question.
> 
> 5a. In what WSIS implementation and follow-up activities at an
> international or regional level has your organisation been involved?
> (Follow-up processes which were agreed at WSIS are described in the
> chapter of the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society which is
> headed “Implementation and Follow-up” (paragraphs 83-122).
> 
> 5b. Which of these processes do you think have been most successful
> during the past five years and why?
> 
> 5c. What action should be taken to build on this success during the
> next five years?
> 
> 6a. Which WSIS implementation and follow-up processes do you think
> have been less successful during the past five years and why?
> 
> 6b. What action should be taken to address these challenges during the
> next five years?
> 
> 7. In your view, what important new issues or themes concerning the
> Information Society have emerged or become important since the Summit
> ended in 2005, which deserve more attention in the next five years?
> 
> 8. What do you think should be the priority themes and areas of work
> for the implementation of WSIS outcomes during the next five years, up
> to the comprehensive review of WSIS in 2015?
> 
> 9. How, if at all, do you think that WSIS follow-up processes need to
> change to take account of changing circumstances and priorities?
> 
> 10. Please make any further comments below that you think would be
> useful to the review.
> 
> ----------------------
> 
> e-mail sent-out from CSTD Secretariat:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> The UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) is
> conducting a five year review of progress made in the implementation
> of, and follow-up to, the outcome of the World Summit on the
> Information Society (WSIS).
> 
> The purpose of the review is to identify progress made, obstacles and
> constraints encountered, as well as actions and initiatives to
> overcome them.   The review will also consider how changes in the ICT
> landscape may call for increased/reduced attention to certain areas.
> 
> To gather inputs for the review, the Chair of the CSTD has initiated
> an open consultation with all stakeholders, including UN and other
> intergovernmental agencies, governments, ICT sector associations and
> agencies, private sector and civil society actors. The principal
> issues in this consultation are set out in a questionnaire, which can
> be found online at http://www.unctad.info/en/CSTD_WSIS5 .  This
> questionnaire invites views and contributions concerning:
> 
> the experience of WSIS implementation since 2005, at an international
> and regional level;
> changes which have taken place in the ICT landscape since WSIS; and
> priorities  for WSIS implementation and Information Society
> development over the next five years.
> 
> It also includes space for other comments that contributors may wish to make.
> 
> The questionnaire could be filled out directly online at the URL
> indicated above.  Responses could also be emailed to Mr. Mongi Hamdi
> (wsis5 at unctad.org)
> 
> The Chair has invited responses to this questionnaire to be submitted
> by 14 December 2010.
> 
> Thank you.
> CSTD Secretariat
> 
> --------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/e0ffe5e5/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From tina.dam at icann.org  Tue Dec  7 08:49:52 2010
From: tina.dam at icann.org (Tina Dam)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 05:49:52 -0800
Subject: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E=D0=B1?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimmR8TmeTYwtPiDGkw0XXLSg6WoeSikezmKn1FY@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>
	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>
	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>
	<AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>
	<1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>
	<AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>
	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<AANLkTi=fP5aWj7VxVZ86E5r9Q5cfYtct2mBJrNdZ4pPK@mail.gmail.com>
	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>
	<0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia>	<4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg>
 <AANLkTimmR8TmeTYwtPiDGkw0XXLSg6WoeSikezmKn1FY@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D35027840C@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>

Hi Hong Xue, nice to see you yesterday. I did not notice you were jetlagged.

We may be meaning the same thing, but just to be clear this is what we said:


-          The fast track process was built limited in nature and for those applications where there is no concerns or no disputes of any kind. I also said I believe this is an appropriate approach for the initial IDN TLD delegations. It does however not mean that things should be more liberal in the future, but it is always easier to expand a program than to narrow it after the fact.


-          Anyone at ICANN who are unhappy about a decision and not able to solve this with staff, can always go to the Ombudsman or seek reconsideration through the process for such. For details about these general processes, which are non-dependant on the fast track process, but part of ICANNs Accountability and Review Processes, please see http://www.icann.org/en/general/accountability_review.html

I am sorry that the audio is broken, but can also tell you that the issue was not discussed any further than that.

Tina

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hong Xue
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 5:24 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev
Subject: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?


Has anyone on this list attended "IDN fast track process review" debriefing at ICANN Cartagena Meeting on December 6? Please refer to http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15415. Ms. Tina Dam and Mr. Patrick Jones from ICANN chaired the session.

Tina presented on the following aspects of fast track process:

- Transparency
- Community Support
- Meaningfulness
- Determination of the IDN ccTLD manager
- IDN Tables
- Disputes
- Confusingly similar string
- Objection/re-evaluation rights

Although there were less than 30 participants in the plenary room, the session brought up interesting information. At the end of the presentation, there were questions raised on the Internet referred to .бг (.bg) case. The staff restated that they were not supposed to comment on any specific case.

I then asked a procedural question. Although the String evaluation done by DNS stability panel (according to their guidelines) is a technical decision, it is a decision made on behalf of ICANN and has (significant) policy implication. If such technical determination is not subject to reconsideration or independent review, wouldn't it be an accountability issue, as highlighted by ICANN at the opening ceremony?

To my *rough* memory, both replied that fast track process should be sufficiently simply, without objection or re-evaluation. And, surprisingly both ICANN staff replied that anyone would be available to reconsideration or review.

Although I was terribly jetlagged, I assume I heard their reply clearly. Since I had another meeting and had to leave the conference room immediately after the question , I did not know if this issue was discussed further.

The audio record at the link is broken unfortunately. If there were anyone present, could you let me know if I heard the reply wrong?

Regards

Hong





--
Dr. Hong Xue
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.iipl.org.cn/<http://iipl.org.cn/>
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg<mailto:daniel at digsys.bg>> wrote:
There is not much point in pointing fingers. Much of the damage has been done to both the Bulgarian application (Government's reputation) and to ICANN (process quality, suspiction of double standards). As it was noted, we can all learn from mistakes and the time now is appropriate to correct the issues.

In my opinion, the fact that there is some shielding of process flow from the non-involved parties is not bad. Bad is the lack of defined evaulation criteria and the total lack of wider/public consultations in the evaluation stages (not decision stages) of the process. Another bad practice is the lack of detailed explanation after the fact. It is only logocal, that refused applications will be reviewed by external parties and those parties may find lack of diligency on part of the staff/evaluation groups. What then?
If there is no procedure for explaining/justifying the opinion or decision, there will always be the doubt that someone has done wrong. And those concerns grow with time until at some point trust breaks.

Daniel

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/b468412d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  7 09:03:47 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 09:03:47 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F06@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

McTim,

You are prejudging the conclusion of a process that has not been proposed, much less begun, and hence is very far from concluded.

I appreciate your foresight, and I may be...presumptuous myself.  But.

Lee
________________________________________
From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 4:47 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight
Cc: Roland Perry
Subject: Re: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
> Right:
>
> "If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance
> of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing
> everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement."
>
> We're making some progress.

I see asking for governmental intervention as regressive.

>
> Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting as a next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in the right direction.

If we want to create a centralised, largely (or exclusively)
intergovernmental  "ITU for the Internet" in charge of routing,
content, security, cybercrime, FOI/FOE, IP, CIRs, and the regulation
of all online businesses, then yes, it's a step in the right
direction.

If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the
networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step.

>
> The language from the ITforchange EC submission could get ball rolling.

down a very slippery slope!

--
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 shahzad at bytesforall.net  Tue Dec  7 09:39:13 2010
From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:39:13 +0500
Subject: [governance] APC statement: A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for
 freedom of information online
Message-ID: <023801cb961c$870df280$9529d780$@net>

Forwarded from APC Network. There is a statement about Wikileaks. Thought
will be of interest to you. 

Best wishes and regards

Shahzad

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

APC says, A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information online

JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA TUESDAY DECEMBER 7 - The Association for
Progressive Communications (APC) is deeply concerned about recent
attempts by governments to limit access to online content recently
published by whistleblower website WikiLeaks.

APC is also troubled by actions taken by private companies such as
EveryDNS.net which disabled the domain name system services for
WikiLeaks.org, Amazon which repealed web hosting services and Paypal
which restricted access to WikiLeaks' account to prevent supporters from
donating money.

APC believes that the ability to share information and communicate
freely using the internet is vital to the realisation of human rights
and to efforts to use the internet to contribute more accountable and
transparent governance at global and national levels. A site like
WikiLeaks can also play a vital role in aiding the fight against
corruption in governments and corporations.

The APC Internet Rights Charter clearly states that:

*The internet must be protected from all attempts to silence critical
voices and to censor social and political content or debate.

*Organisations, communities and individuals should be free to use the
internet to organise and engage in protest.

*All information, including scientific and social research, that is
produced with the support of public funds should be freely available to all.

As the world's longest-running online progressive network founded in
1990, APC has been troubled by trends over the last decade that show
that such rights are increasingly violated and believes that the recent
attempts to censor WikiLeaks provide additional reasons for concern.

The US government has been unable to provide evidence that lives have
been put at risk by WikiLeaks disclosures.

APC appeals to all governments and the internet community to explicitly
reject any form of online content control that limits freedom of
expression and information, particularly information that contributes to
more transparent governance, and that empowers citizens to hold their
governments accountable. We urge them to assure the uninterrupted online
presence of the WikiLeaks website.

A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information on the internet.

END

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Tue Dec  7 09:54:55 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 23:54:55 +0900
Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF, Dec
 17, now fixed
Message-ID: <AANLkTinBLOnz3JQKKjzZuTS1oWVGTsx3t-s=f-6Jimxu@mail.gmail.com>

Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received.
Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes.
The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon?

Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities
with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new
entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from
IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the
procedure, they say.

izumi

------------------------------
The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for
development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years.
Please see the news item on the CSTD website:
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839

The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front
page under "just published".

Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December.

All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were
accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to
fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat:
http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc

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

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 Dec  7 09:06:42 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 14:06:42 +0000
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7 at mail.gmail.com>, at 
12:47:48 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes
>On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>> Right:
>>
>> "If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance
>> of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing
>> everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement."
>>
>> We're making some progress.
>
>I see asking for governmental intervention as regressive.

So you want multistakeholder, without but governments?

>> Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting 
>>as a next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in 
>>the right direction.
>
>If we want to create a centralised, largely (or exclusively)
>intergovernmental  "ITU for the Internet" in charge of routing,
>content, security, cybercrime, FOI/FOE, IP, CIRs, and the regulation
>of all online businesses, then yes, it's a step in the right
>direction.
>
>If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the
>networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step.

And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about 
public policy (political) issues than operational policy matters.

-- 
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 Dec  7 10:12:47 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:42:47 +0530
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com> <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <4CFE4EEF.7080502@itforchange.net>



On Tuesday 07 December 2010 07:36 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message 
> <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7 at mail.gmail.com>, at 
> 12:47:48 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes
>> If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the
>> networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step.
>
> And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about 
> public policy (political) issues than operational policy matters.
>

Yes, indeed a very important discussion. In fact, in our submission for 
EC consultations we propose that technical policy issues and public 
policy issues be discussed as two distinct tracks... Even on this list, 
the number of times when one is discussing the context of Internet 
related public policies and get responses that just pertain to the 
context of technical operational issues/ policies is so high that it 
will be good to mark emails/ discussions as belonging to one kind or the 
other... If we can do something to that effect, we will be doing so much 
more meaningful discussions.

Parminder
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/29961b04/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  7 10:35:23 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:35:23 +0500
Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF,
 Dec 17, now fixed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinBLOnz3JQKKjzZuTS1oWVGTsx3t-s=f-6Jimxu@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBLOnz3JQKKjzZuTS1oWVGTsx3t-s=f-6Jimxu@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=37VGt6LXR7iG-MwFgB6w71-3Lc_HyNAXG2qSa@mail.gmail.com>

So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially
passed and resolved?

--- Fouad?

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received.
> Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes.
> The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon?
>
> Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities
> with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new
> entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from
> IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the
> procedure, they say.
>
> izumi
>
> ------------------------------
> The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for
> development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years.
> Please see the news item on the CSTD website:
> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839
>
> The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front
> page under "just published".
>
> Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December.
>
> All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were
> accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to
> fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat:
> http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc
>
> ------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 mueller at syr.edu  Tue Dec  7 11:03:31 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 11:03:31 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>




One, a call to frame such principles in form of a framework convention on the Internet, is a part of our input to the EC process, and so, yes, i agree completely. New institutional developments should be framed by and within codified principles.

But we need to make it clear that the principles involve _limitations_ on power, and rights for end users. The term “principles” is a bit too vague by itself.

Secondly,, i have always thought that terms like democracy and even 'participatory' very clearly, and centrally, include all the needed checks and balances against majoritarianism.

I guess this is where we disagree. In Western academic and political discourse, at least, the term “democracy” does not mean the same thing as “liberal democracy”

Why do you suspect otherwise. I do not understand why centuries old concepts and ideas like democracy are suddenly opened up to such unjustified criticism or critiques, as if something quite novel is being discussed or proposed.

Well, democracy means “rule by the people” and thus raises the issue of what “public” or “people” one is talking about. Democracy has for the past 3-4 centuries meant “nations” or more territorially delimited publics. Global democracy is indeed something extremely novel.

You are probably already familiar with this but for some good discussions of what it means, see this web site: http://www.buildingglobaldemocracy.org/content/cgd-case-studies

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/6531a44f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  7 11:06:16 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:06:16 +0300
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com> <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinZZSEaFpEHuQaruZDOAbAiofmzNJz35gnRAWKC@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Roland Perry
<roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
> In message <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7 at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 12:47:48 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:09 AM, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> Right:
>>>
>>> "If we can solve the problem of International Multistakeholder Governance
>>> of the Internet (by the Internet) then we can apply it to governing
>>> everything else in the world, and that could be quite some achievement."
>>>
>>> We're making some progress.
>>
>> I see asking for governmental intervention as regressive.
>
> So you want multistakeholder, without but governments?

on the contrary, at the most recent AfriNIC meeting a gave a
presentation about how the 30/30/30/10 mix (with the ITC making up the
10%) was a great recipe for MS policy making.

I just don't want gov'ts to overwhelm the others as they would do in
any Framework Convention.

>
>>> Advocating a Framework Convention as some of us have been suggesting as a
>>> next step for years...on the 14th would be a - small step - in the right
>>> direction.
>>
>> If we want to create a centralised, largely (or exclusively)
>> intergovernmental  "ITU for the Internet" in charge of routing,
>> content, security, cybercrime, FOI/FOE, IP, CIRs, and the regulation
>> of all online businesses, then yes, it's a step in the right
>> direction.
>>
>> If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the
>> networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step.
>
> And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about public
> policy (political) issues than operational policy matters.

Understood, but when one talks about "Global Internet traffic flows"
as public policy, then the two are inseparable (conflated more
likely).

-- 
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 Dec  7 11:14:29 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 19:14:29 +0300
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <4CFE4EEF.7080502@itforchange.net>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CFE4EEF.7080502@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikP7UfEeVVTGwRF8C1QKk2emSrzd=Kd0DBjHKhs@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:12 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday 07 December 2010 07:36 PM, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> In message <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7 at mail.gmail.com>,
> at 12:47:48 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> writes
>
> If however, one prefers to keep Internet policy in the hands of the
> networks that make up the Internet, then no, it's a mis-step.
>
> And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about public
> policy (political) issues than operational policy matters.
>
>
> Yes, indeed a very important discussion. In fact, in our submission for EC
> consultations we propose that technical policy issues and public policy
> issues be discussed as two distinct tracks

but you muddle them.

I run a network.  Is this FCor GIC or whatever Uber Council/Star
Chamber that you want to create going to tell me how I can do traffic
engineering? Who I must/can peer with?  Is it legit to drop packets at
the edge of my network if i am sure they are
SPAM/DDOS/bogons/whatever?

... Even on this list, the number
> of times when one is discussing the context of Internet related public
> policies and get responses that just pertain to the context of technical
> operational issues/ policies is so high that it will be good to mark emails/
> discussions as belonging to one kind or the other... If we can do something
> to that effect, we will be doing so much more meaningful discussions.

See above, they are separate in your theory, but not in my practice.


-- 
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  Tue Dec  7 13:14:07 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 13:14:07 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

The key characteristic of internet governance is that one cannot separate the two. 

> -----Original Message-----
> And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about
> public policy (political) issues than operational policy matters.
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From riaz.tayob at gmail.com  Tue Dec  7 15:15:18 2010
From: riaz.tayob at gmail.com (Riaz K Tayob)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:15:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims
 website's co-founder
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <004401cb94ca$ac151ac0$9d00a8c0@RJRTX690P>,<BB4B5480-2D94-4649-B264-71C68CFBA6AB@me.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE6@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4CFE95D6.8020505@gmail.com>


And more:

7 December 2010 Last updated at 14:52 GMT


  Wikileaks' Visa payments suspended


Visa Europe has begun suspending payments to whistle-blowing website 
Wikileaks ahead of carrying out an investigation into the organisation.

It follows a similar move by rival payments processor Mastercard on Tuesday.

Visa's announcement comes after Wikileaks' founder Julian Assange was 
arrested by police in London.

Mr Assange, whose website has published secret documents, is wanted in 
Sweden on sexual assault allegations.

Wikileaks relies on online donations to fund its operations, which will 
now not be possible using both Visa and Mastercard debit and credit cards.

A spokeswoman for Visa Europe said its investigation would determine the 
nature of Wikileaks' business, and "whether it contravenes Visa 
operating rules".

She added that Visa Europe could not suspend payments to Wikileaks 
immediately, and that the process took a certain amount of time.

Mastercard said in its statement that it was "in the process of working 
to suspend the acceptance of Mastercard cards on Wikileaks until the 
situation is resolved".

Online payment firm PayPal and internet giant Amazon have also cut their 
links with Wikileaks in recent days.



On 2010/12/06 02:47 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> But wait there's more...
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net]
> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:43 PM
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "RJR rjriley.com<http://rjriley.com>"<rjr at rjriley.com<mailto:rjr at rjriley.com>>
> Date: December 5, 2010 5:20:49 PM EST
> To:<mailto:dave at farber.net>  dave at farber.net<mailto:dave at farber.net>
> Subject: WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder
>
>
>
>
> Interesting claims, hard to tell what the motive may be.
>
> Ronald J Riley
>
> ===
>
> WikiLeaks sold classified intel, claims website's co-founder
> Selling secrets 'lucrative,' but 'usually cloaked in some kind of public benefit'
> ________________________________
> Posted: December 05, 2010
> 2:40 pm Eastern
>
> © 2010 WorldNetDaily
>
>
>
> One of the early members and co-founders of the tight-knit, secretive WikiLeaks operation charged today that the website and its co-founder, Julian Assange, sold intelligence information the site had obtained.
>
> John Young, whose name was listed as the public face of WikiLeaks in the site's original domain registration, also alleged that the website is a lucrative business.
>
> Young said he left the site in 2007 due to concerns over its finances and that WikiLeaks was engaged in the selling of documents.
>
> More....<http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236345>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236345
>
>
>
> Archives<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>  [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg]<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/8923115-8446eb07>   | Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-86ed04cc>  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now<https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=8923115&id_secret=8923115-e899f1f0&post_id=20101205174336:0E0876A2-00C1-11E0-9294-A4E83DC78608>      [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png]<http://www.listbox.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/c005ad2e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  7 15:38:03 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 20:38:03 +0000
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 13:14:07 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
writes

>> And does "one" prefer that? In any case, I was thinking more about
>> public policy (political) issues than operational policy matters.

>The key characteristic of internet governance is that one cannot 
>separate the two.

I'd start from a position that Public Policy is what's expressed in laws 
and treaties, whereas operational policy is founded in standards 
documents and contracts (and including Acceptable-Use Policies and Best 
Practices). The overlaps starts when someone says "hey - let's have a 
law or treaty that says this technical standard or contract term is 
compulsory".
-- 
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  Tue Dec  7 16:40:20 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 22:40:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 
Hi everybody
 
there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental representatives from the five host countries of the IGF. 
 
We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome
 
 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Dec  7 16:46:11 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:46:11 -0500
Subject: [governance] RE: IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B43F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

First, let's confirm that rumor. 

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Hi everybody
> 
> there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to
> establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only
> working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the
> group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental
> members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental
> representatives from the five host countries of the IGF.
> 
> We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome
> 
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From mueller at syr.edu  Tue Dec  7 16:52:50 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 16:52:50 -0500
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B440@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>


> -----Original Message-----
> I'd start from a position that Public Policy is what's expressed in laws
> and treaties, whereas operational policy is founded in standards
> documents and contracts (and including Acceptable-Use Policies and Best
> Practices). The overlaps starts when someone says "hey - let's have a
> law or treaty that says this technical standard or contract term is
> compulsory".
> --

The overlap starts well before that.

What you are saying, in effect, is that if the government wants to impose public policy concerns on the industry it must alter the technical standards, or operations, or private contractual terms among ISPs, hosting companies, etc. Conversely, if it wants to allow industry players to set standards, perform operations or negotiate contracts on their own, it will have little influence on public policy. That tells me the two are inseparable. 

More fundamentally (and this is a point I explore at length in Networks and States), when you talk about "public policy" what "public" are you talking about? On the global internet, there are 200+ national publics, many more subnational publics, and several transnational or regional publics involved. If so, what gives a "national" public in the form of one government the right to legislate in ways that affect 20 or 30 other publics over which they have no legitimate authority? 

Communications media create their own publics. 

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

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 Dec  7 17:49:11 2010
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 23:49:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] AW: IGF Improvement
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B43F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID:  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0754A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

The decision was made in a CSTD bureau meeting yesterday at a late hour when only a limited number of governments where in the room. Only a very small group of governments, including Portugal and Switzerland, defended the multistakeholder model but the majority of the CSTD members in the room argued that it would be better for the process if the governments can discuss improvement - based on the input of the various stakeholders - among themselves.
 
We have to wait until the official announcement.  
 
w
 

 
________________________________

Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
Gesendet: Di 07.12.2010 22:46
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Betreff: RE: IGF Improvement



First, let's confirm that rumor.

> -----Original Message-----
>
> Hi everybody
>
> there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to
> establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only
> working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the
> group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental
> members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental
> representatives from the five host countries of the IGF.
>
> We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome
>
>


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From vanda at uol.com.br  Tue Dec  7 18:08:46 2010
From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 18:08:46 -0500
Subject: RES: [governance] =?UTF-8?Q?Is_really_Bulgarian_Cyrillic_=2E?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=D0=B1=D0=B3_=28=2Ebg=29_similar_to_other_Latin_ccTLDs=3F?=
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimmR8TmeTYwtPiDGkw0XXLSg6WoeSikezmKn1FY@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1291131665.20152.1407897083@webmail.messagingengine.com>	<AANLkTikgPie+wr7VBeA-d=4ni1yC=rwYFK3sP9ha9D4G@mail.gmail.com>	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DDE4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>	<AANLkTimoePpYEP06FMrSV+pOVTmJ=jcmYrnQREsa2KMt@mail.gmail.com>	<500941AB-8ACA-4A6E-A681-E0B3CB6E9EB0@acm.org>	<AANLkTinu6QCzgA1i1iijtvObM8b3rLFar=hd_msE5YQ_@mail.gmail.com>	<1701E13A4DA6F3EE1CC135C7@as-paul-l-1813.local>	<AANLkTimexxG=RxTF9C3dp=qbC6O_+s9BZ-A+JV1ygZbB@mail.gmail.com>	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFAFF@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>	<AANLkTi=fP5aWj7VxVZ86E5r9Q5cfYtct2mBJrNdZ4pPK@mail.gmail.com>	<05B243F724B2284986522B6ACD0504D7D34FFBFB84@EXVPMBX100-1.exc.icann.org>	<0ea201cb93b1$1c245a30$546d0e90$@asia>	<4CFD2CCF.1040109@digsys.bg> <AANLkTimmR8TmeTYwtPiDGkw0XXLSg6WoeSikezmKn1FY@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <020b01cb9663$b9e40bd0$2dac2370$@uol.com.br>

If confuse with b  will be brazil ( .br)

 

Vanda Scartezini

Polo Consultores Associados

IT Trend

Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8

01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil

Tel + 5511 3266.6253

Mob + 55118181.1464

 

De: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] Em nome de Hong Xue
Enviada em: terça-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2010 05:24
Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Daniel Kalchev
Assunto: Re: [governance] Is really Bulgarian Cyrillic .бг (.bg) similar to other Latin ccTLDs?

 


Has anyone on this list attended "IDN fast track process review" debriefing at ICANN Cartagena Meeting on December 6? Please refer to http://cartagena39.icann.org/node/15415. Ms. Tina Dam and Mr. Patrick Jones from ICANN chaired the session. 

Tina presented on the following aspects of fast track process:

- Transparency
- Community Support
- Meaningfulness
- Determination of the IDN ccTLD manager
- IDN Tables
- Disputes
- Confusingly similar string
- Objection/re-evaluation rights

Although there were less than 30 participants in the plenary room, the session brought up interesting information. At the end of the presentation, there were questions raised on the Internet referred to .бг (.bg) case. The staff restated that they were not supposed to comment on any specific case. 

I then asked a procedural question. Although the String evaluation done by DNS stability panel (according to their guidelines) is a technical decision, it is a decision made on behalf of ICANN and has (significant) policy implication. If such technical determination is not subject to reconsideration or independent review, wouldn't it be an accountability issue, as highlighted by ICANN at the opening ceremony? 

To my *rough* memory, both replied that fast track process should be sufficiently simply, without objection or re-evaluation. And, surprisingly both ICANN staff replied that anyone would be available to reconsideration or review. 

Although I was terribly jetlagged, I assume I heard their reply clearly. Since I had another meeting and had to leave the conference room immediately after the question , I did not know if this issue was discussed further. 

The audio record at the link is broken unfortunately. If there were anyone present, could you let me know if I heard the reply wrong?

Regards

Hong





-- 
Dr. Hong Xue
Professor of Law
Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL)
Beijing Normal University
http://www.iipl.org.cn/ <http://iipl.org.cn/> 
19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street
Beijing 100875 China

On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 2:34 AM, Daniel Kalchev <daniel at digsys.bg> wrote:

There is not much point in pointing fingers. Much of the damage has been done to both the Bulgarian application (Government's reputation) and to ICANN (process quality, suspiction of double standards). As it was noted, we can all learn from mistakes and the time now is appropriate to correct the issues.

In my opinion, the fact that there is some shielding of process flow from the non-involved parties is not bad. Bad is the lack of defined evaulation criteria and the total lack of wider/public consultations in the evaluation stages (not decision stages) of the process. Another bad practice is the lack of detailed explanation after the fact. It is only logocal, that refused applications will be reviewed by external parties and those parties may find lack of diligency on part of the staff/evaluation groups. What then?
If there is no procedure for explaining/justifying the opinion or decision, there will always be the doubt that someone has done wrong. And those concerns grow with time until at some point trust breaks.

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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/4d3de73b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  7 20:19:09 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:19:09 -0800
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
Message-ID: <D8236834D72C4B03AC7929559403E692@userPC>

Source:  http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2706

ISOC Monthly Newsletter

The Internet Society on the Wikileaks issue


Recently, we have witnessed the effective disappearance from the Internet of
a website made infamous through international press coverage and political
intrigue.

The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression and
non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and utility
of the Internet. We believe that this incident dramatically illustrates that
those principles are currently at risk.

Recognizing the content of the wikileaks.org website is the subject of
concern to a variety of individuals and nations, we nevertheless believe it
must be subject to the same laws and policies of availability as all
Internet sites.  Free expression should not be restricted by governmental or
private controls over computer hardware or software, telecommunications
infrastructure, or other essential components of the Internet.

Resilience and cooperation are built into the Internet as a design
principle. The cooperation among several organizations has ensured that the
impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all access
to Wikileaks material.  This further underscores that the removal of a
domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving to
undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation.

Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the
wikileaks.org domain down legally, technical solutions should be sought to
reestablish its proper presence, and appropriate actions taken to pursue and
prosecute entities (if any) that acted maliciously to take it off the air.

(end)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/311f9d00/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Tue Dec  7 21:24:31 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:24:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>

Wolfgang, thank you for sharing this critical information (in my view).

Though not confirmed, I think we should not "wait" until it is confirmed.
I mean wait for official announcement, per se. Let's think ahead.
IF this is just a rumor but WG are selected on MSH base, that's fine.

To me it is quite clear that there is a move to "shrink" the mutli-stakeholder
framework at both IGF and Enhanced cooperation. Whether that move is
adopted or not is another question, but many governments are trying
to move the negotiation place within their own turf while some other
governments and most other entities, civil society, private sector, technical
community are trying to keep the MSH if not to advance.

I think we need to come up with good strategy and work plan to address
this, and also "outreach" with like-minded people who are not yet on
board for the preparation process of IGF2 and WSIS2015.

For that Dec 14 EC consultation and Dec 17 IGF WG meeting are
quite important to show that civil society is very much concerned about
the potential degrading of MSH, ask them to remain committed to it,
and further advance that for the next round.

We may, just like we did with ICC and ISOC, prepare and publish joint
letter of protest, with possible outreach to other organizations as well.

Just my idea,

izumi



2010/12/8 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>:
>
> Hi everybody
>
> there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental representatives from the five host countries of the IGF.
>
> We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome
>
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From jeremy at ciroap.org  Tue Dec  7 22:02:34 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:02:34 +0800
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com> <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>

On 08/12/2010, at 10:24 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> I think we need to come up with good strategy and work plan to address
> this, and also "outreach" with like-minded people who are not yet on
> board for the preparation process of IGF2 and WSIS2015.

I am put in mind of the way that the OpenOffice.org community recently broke away from Oracle (formerly Sun), which had become unfriendly to the open source community, to form the Document Foundation, and renamed its product LibreOffice.  Quoting from its Web site:

> The Document Foundation will continue to be focused on developing, supporting, and promoting the same software, and it's very much business as usual. We are simply moving to a new and more appropriate organisational model...


If Internet governance processes in the UN system continue to become more intergovernmental, it may force members of the IGF, including civil society society, private sector and governments supportive of multi-stakeholder democratic principles, to break away and operate independently...

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/b90fd4eb/attachment.bin>

From katitza at eff.org  Tue Dec  7 22:31:52 2010
From: katitza at eff.org (Katitza Rodriguez)
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2010 19:31:52 -0800
Subject: [governance] EFF: Join EFF in Standing up Against Internet
 Censorship
Message-ID: <4CFEFC28.1030007@eff.org>

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/join-eff-in-standing-up-against-internet-censorship

December 7th, 2010


  Join EFF in Standing up Against Internet Censorship
  <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/join-eff-in-standing-up-against-internet-censorship>

/EFF: Join EFF in Standing up Against Internet Censorship

Call To Action <https://www.eff.org/blog-categories/call-action> by 
Shari Steele <https://www.eff.org/about/staff/shari-steele>/

Over the past few weeks, we here at EFF have watched as whistleblowing 
website WikiLeaks has fueled an emotionally charged debate about the 
secrecy of government information and the people's right to know. We 
have welcomed this debate, and the fact that there have been myriad 
views is the embodiment of the freedom of expression upon which this 
country was founded.

However, we've been greatly troubled by a recent shift in focus. The 
debate about the wisdom of releasing secret government documents has 
turned into a massive attack on the right of intermediaries to publish 
truthful information. Suddenly, WikiLeaks has become the Internet's 
scapegoat, with a Who's Who of American and foreign companies choosing 
to shun the site.

Let's be clear --- in the United States, at least, WikiLeaks has a 
fundamental right to publish 
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17571244799664973711> 
truthful political information. And equally important, Internet users 
have a fundamental right to read 
<http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6728320798248524934&q> that 
information and voice their opinions about it. We live in a society that 
values freedom of expression and shuns censorship. Unfortunately, those 
values are only as strong as the will to support them --- a will that 
seems to be dwindling now in an alarming way.

On Friday, we wrote 
<https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/amazon-and-wikileaks-first-amendment-only-strong> 
about Amazon's disappointing decision to yank hosting services from 
WikiLeaks after a phone call from a senator's office. Since then, a 
cascade of companies and organizations has backed away from WikiLeaks. A 
public figure called for the assassination 
<http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Charge+Harper+aide+assassinate+Julian+Assange+comment+lawyer/3931327/story.html> 
of Assange. PayPal 
<http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/paypal-suspends-wikileaks-account/>, 
MasterCard 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-20024801-503543.html>, and Visa 
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11938320> axed WikiLeaks' accounts. 
EveryDNS.net pulled 
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/wikileaks-internet-backlash-us-pressure> 
Wikileaks' DNS services. Unknown sources continue to cripple WikiLeaks 
with repeated denial of service attacks 
<https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/11825920490868737>. Even the 
Library of Congress, normally a bastion of public access to information, 
is blocking 
<http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/12/why-the-library-of-congress-is-blocking-wikileaks/> 
WikiLeaks.

There has been a tremendous backlash against WikiLeaks from governments 
around the world. In the United States, lawmakers have rashly proposed a 
law 
<http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?ContentRecord_id=a908e152-c766-a798-abd5-07da74b197b3&FuseAction=Media.PressReleases> 
that threatens 
<http://www.lawfareblog.com/2010/12/espionage-act-amendments/> 
legitimate news reporting well beyond WikiLeaks. We expect to see 
similar efforts in other countries. Like it or not, WikiLeaks has become 
the emblem for one of the most important battles for our rights that is 
likely to come along in our lifetimes. We cannot sit this one out.


      Join EFF in standing up against Internet censorship
      <https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship>.

Download our No Censorship button 
<https://www.eff.org/pages/say-no-to-online-censorship> to display on 
your websites and social networking profiles. Show the world that you 
are committed to free expression and denounce censorship.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101207/e5d0c263/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 00:26:36 2010
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:26:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
 <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@[186.113.248.242]>

Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news 
about the CSTD working group is correct.

The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and 
Internet community is simply to not participate.  To immediately 
write a joint letter stating we will not participate.

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From iza at anr.org  Wed Dec  8 00:34:25 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:34:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
 <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikxXZiC5BWfo_-khcXRJBxShrkM=y3XYTV1++Oo@mail.gmail.com>

Jeremy and Adam, and all.

It's so bad that the rumor sound like very much true.

But, I may argue (for the sake of making clear consensus based
on wide consideration) or ask - is the non-participation, boycotting
the process really the best option now?

Not participate to which process? Working Group only, to  which in any case
if they exclude CS members we cannot participate.
Or coming consultation process as a whole including on IGF and on EC?

To me, rather, we need to raise our strong voice, joint letter with perhaps
many more organizations than ICC and ISOC, and continue to "lobby",
attend meetings, as observer then request for speaking slots etc,
with clear reservation that we do not approve this approach.

An early withdrawal may make just our presence very low in the main stage,
unless we have a very strong and visible alternative forum.

I also don't think forming joint body between CS and Private Sector
only becomes good alternative. Unless some good number of governments
support and/or participate, CS and PS joint is not quite "multi-stakeholoder"
organ in my vew.

I do not mean we should accept the decision - not at all.
And I am open to different views.

izumi


2010/12/8 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about the
> CSTD working group is correct.
>
> The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and
> Internet community is simply to not participate.  To immediately write a
> joint letter stating we will not participate.
>
> Adam
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Dec  8 00:40:18 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:40:18 +0900
Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF,
 Dec 17, now fixed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=37VGt6LXR7iG-MwFgB6w71-3Lc_HyNAXG2qSa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBLOnz3JQKKjzZuTS1oWVGTsx3t-s=f-6Jimxu@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=37VGt6LXR7iG-MwFgB6w71-3Lc_HyNAXG2qSa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin8od+k4Us8-+0MMvzuiYuDmf40Bk4s8+z-nDgi@mail.gmail.com>

Well, I don't know.

The problem is that on CSTD website, they say the resolution passed GA,
and that's what the CSTD secretariat sent me, but I am not sure if
they need the final adoption by GA plenary or 2nd Committee resolution
is THE FINAL.

Anyone familiar with UN procedures?

izumi



2010/12/8 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>:
> So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially
> passed and resolved?
>
> --- Fouad?
>
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>> Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received.
>> Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes.
>> The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon?
>>
>> Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities
>> with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new
>> entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from
>> IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the
>> procedure, they say.
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for
>> development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years.
>> Please see the news item on the CSTD website:
>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839
>>
>> The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front
>> page under "just published".
>>
>> Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December.
>>
>> All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were
>> accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to
>> fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat:
>> http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> ____________________
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Dec  8 00:42:56 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:42:56 +0900
Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF,
 Dec 17, now fixed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8od+k4Us8-+0MMvzuiYuDmf40Bk4s8+z-nDgi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBLOnz3JQKKjzZuTS1oWVGTsx3t-s=f-6Jimxu@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTi=37VGt6LXR7iG-MwFgB6w71-3Lc_HyNAXG2qSa@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTin8od+k4Us8-+0MMvzuiYuDmf40Bk4s8+z-nDgi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimHTGx7iMw02cnzzM9bcXgxOt6gh+=8+z-S+XRa@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry - the website says the following:

General Assembly adopt resolution on "Information and communications
technologies for development"

24 Nov 10 - The Second Committee of the General Assembly adopted by
consensus a resolution on "Information and communications technologies
for development" on 24 November 2010 in New York. The resolution
reaffirms the importance of ICT for development, and makes a number of
recommendations with respect to the implementation of, and follow-up
to, the World Summit on the Information Society(WSIS), including
internet governance.

----
They say "General Assembly adopt resolution"  NOT "adpoted" in the header.
So this could be read as "GA to adopt resolution passed by 2nd commission"
in the near future.

Very confusing.

izumi


2010/12/8 Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>:
> Well, I don't know.
>
> The problem is that on CSTD website, they say the resolution passed GA,
> and that's what the CSTD secretariat sent me, but I am not sure if
> they need the final adoption by GA plenary or 2nd Committee resolution
> is THE FINAL.
>
> Anyone familiar with UN procedures?
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/12/8 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>:
>> So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially
>> passed and resolved?
>>
>> --- Fouad?
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>> Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received.
>>> Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes.
>>> The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon?
>>>
>>> Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities
>>> with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new
>>> entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from
>>> IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the
>>> procedure, they say.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for
>>> development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years.
>>> Please see the news item on the CSTD website:
>>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839
>>>
>>> The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front
>>> page under "just published".
>>>
>>> Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December.
>>>
>>> All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were
>>> accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to
>>> fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat:
>>> http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> ____________________
>



-- 
                        >> 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 b.schombe at gmail.com  Wed Dec  8 04:51:07 2010
From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:51:07 +0100
Subject: [governance] enhanced cooperation consultations
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <C920F4B7.141E3%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <4CFB008F.8070003@itforchange.net>
 <AANLkTimj_RYfoRALaEONxCZiCOn5OcJL0HqNCyMqBVMF@mail.gmail.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DF43@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <4CFD13EF.2060807@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimQMZZ_sVmS9oBHT8JVC0zAnDSwD+BrnGUO6seu@mail.gmail.com>

Hello,
You have all your reading of "democracy" and I'll grant you. But in African
realities, "democracy" is still an event for "galas" and the rhetoric of
African political zombies. So I can not pretend that Africa's population
actually participates, according to the sacred principles of universal
democracy, the management of pubic thing.
There are certainly exceptions but it's very very thin.

 Baudouin

2010/12/7 Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>

>
>
>
>
>
> One, a call to frame such principles in form of a framework convention on
> the Internet, is a part of our input to the EC process, and so, yes, i agree
> completely. New institutional developments should be framed by and within
> codified principles.
>
>
>
> But we need to make it clear that the principles involve _*limitations*_
> on power, and rights for end users. The term “principles” is a bit too vague
> by itself.
>
>
>
> Secondly,, i have always thought that terms like democracy and even
> 'participatory' very clearly, and centrally, include all the needed checks
> and balances against majoritarianism.
>
>
>
> I guess this is where we disagree. In Western academic and political
> discourse, at least, the term “democracy” does not mean the same thing as
> “liberal democracy”
>
>
>
> Why do you suspect otherwise. I do not understand why centuries old
> concepts and ideas like democracy are suddenly opened up to such unjustified
> criticism or critiques, as if something quite novel is being discussed or
> proposed.
>
> Well, democracy means “rule by the people” and thus raises the issue of
> what “public” or “people” one is talking about. Democracy has for the past
> 3-4 centuries meant “nations” or more territorially delimited publics.
> Global democracy is indeed something extremely novel.
>
>
>
> You are probably already familiar with this but for some good discussions
> of what it means, see this web site:
> http://www.buildingglobaldemocracy.org/content/cgd-case-studies
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/0eb41302/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From miguel.alcaine at gmail.com  Wed Dec  8 07:08:23 2010
From: miguel.alcaine at gmail.com (Miguel Alcaine)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:08:23 +0100
Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF,
 Dec 17, now fixed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8od+k4Us8-+0MMvzuiYuDmf40Bk4s8+z-nDgi@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTinBLOnz3JQKKjzZuTS1oWVGTsx3t-s=f-6Jimxu@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=37VGt6LXR7iG-MwFgB6w71-3Lc_HyNAXG2qSa@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTin8od+k4Us8-+0MMvzuiYuDmf40Bk4s8+z-nDgi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimGu1RgTQVzNs5_GkRRcX3oYiAGn7q_YAdJovbV@mail.gmail.com>

Dear all,

As long as I know, the plenary has to adopt it.

As informal negotiations have finished within the 2nd Committee, the
GA should adopt it without problems.

Best,

Miguel

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Well, I don't know.
>
> The problem is that on CSTD website, they say the resolution passed GA,
> and that's what the CSTD secretariat sent me, but I am not sure if
> they need the final adoption by GA plenary or 2nd Committee resolution
> is THE FINAL.
>
> Anyone familiar with UN procedures?
>
> izumi
>
>
>
> 2010/12/8 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>:
>> So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially
>> passed and resolved?
>>
>> --- Fouad?
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>> Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received.
>>> Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes.
>>> The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon?
>>>
>>> Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS entities
>>> with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new
>>> entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from
>>> IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the
>>> procedure, they say.
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for
>>> development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years.
>>> Please see the news item on the CSTD website:
>>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839
>>>
>>> The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front
>>> page under "just published".
>>>
>>> Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December.
>>>
>>> All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were
>>> accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to
>>> fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat:
>>> http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>> ____________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Wed Dec  8 07:24:32 2010
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:24:32 +0100
Subject: [governance] GA resolution adopted and CSTD WG meeting on IGF,
 Dec 17, now fixed
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8od+k4Us8-+0MMvzuiYuDmf40Bk4s8+z-nDgi@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C9253790.11A97%wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at>

Normally, all committee resolutions are finally adopted by plenary of GA.

Kind regards

Wolfgang Benedek


Am 08.12.10 06:40 schrieb "Izumi AIZU" unter <iza at anr.org>:

> Well, I don't know.
> 
> The problem is that on CSTD website, they say the resolution passed GA,
> and that's what the CSTD secretariat sent me, but I am not sure if
> they need the final adoption by GA plenary or 2nd Committee resolution
> is THE FINAL.
> 
> Anyone familiar with UN procedures?
> 
> izumi
> 
> 
> 
> 2010/12/8 Fouad Bajwa <fouadbajwa at gmail.com>:
>> So the mandate for renewal of the IGF for 5 years stand officially
>> passed and resolved?
>> 
>> --- Fouad?
>> 
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>> Here is the email from CSTD secretariat I received.
>>> Dec 17 meeting will take place, yes.
>>> The announcement of WG should come before this, but how soon?
>>> 
>>> Another possible problem is that the participation is limited to the CS
>>> entities
>>> with ECOSOC or WSIS accreditation (that was five years ago). So new
>>> entities are not allowed to enter in the room, which if different from
>>> IGF practice.  The secretariat cannot change the rules of the
>>> procedure, they say.
>>> 
>>> izumi
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------
>>> The General Assembly had already adopted a resolution on ICT for
>>> development in which it extended the IGF mandate by 5 years.
>>> Please see the news item on the CSTD website:
>>> http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Startpage.asp?intItemID=4839
>>> 
>>> The text of resolution is posted on the right hand side of the front
>>> page under "just published".
>>> 
>>> Yes there will be a meeting of the CSTD Working Group on IGF on 17 December.
>>> 
>>> All civil society entities who are either accredited by ECOSOC or were
>>> accredited by WSIS are allowed to attend the meeting, but they need to
>>> fill up the registration and send it back to the CSTD Secretariat:
>>> http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/UN_cstd2010regform_en.doc
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------
>>> ____________________
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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  Wed Dec  8 07:58:58 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:58:58 +0300
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikxXZiC5BWfo_-khcXRJBxShrkM=y3XYTV1++Oo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
 <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org> <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242>
 <AANLkTikxXZiC5BWfo_-khcXRJBxShrkM=y3XYTV1++Oo@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimcE70j7HcON=GG19XScMPeTxDJ8P6_5oYWD_6F@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Jeremy and Adam, and all.
>
> It's so bad that the rumor sound like very much true.


If in fact true, I hope it slows down our headong, pell mell rush to
ask governments to take over so many IG issues.


>
> But, I may argue (for the sake of making clear consensus based
> on wide consideration) or ask - is the non-participation, boycotting
> the process really the best option now?
>
> Not participate to which process? Working Group only, to  which in any case
> if they exclude CS members we cannot participate.
> Or coming consultation process as a whole including on IGF and on EC?

That's where we protest IMO.

>
> To me, rather, we need to raise our strong voice, joint letter with perhaps
> many more organizations than ICC and ISOC, and continue to "lobby",
> attend meetings, as observer then request for speaking slots etc,
> with clear reservation that we do not approve this approach.

I just don't see why we go, tin cup in hand like beggars asking to be
part of their process, when we don't engage in actual IG processes (as
a Caucus) that are already open to our participation.

-- 
Cheers,

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From ca at cafonso.ca  Wed Dec  8 09:42:07 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:42:07 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com> <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>  <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <4CFF993F.8020701@cafonso.ca>

Surprise! :)

It would actually be a surprise if it happened otherwise, given the 
obvious signals we have been receiving since Sharm el Sheik from Mr Sha 
Zukang/UNDESA.

--c.a.

On 12/07/2010 07:40 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote:
>
> Hi everybody
>
> there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental representatives from the five host countries of the IGF.
>
> We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>       http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> 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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Dec  8 10:05:20 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:05:20 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikxXZiC5BWfo_-khcXRJBxShrkM=y3XYTV1++Oo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
	<C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
	<i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
	<M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
	<KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
	<151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
	<p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242>
	<AANLkTikxXZiC5BWfo_-khcXRJBxShrkM=y3XYTV1++Oo@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=DTmR-GhsTZbn-b3xoS4CbWs02pGUJ3xNUnUE-@mail.gmail.com>

It is time to act fast and send a strong document before they issue a formal
note, arguing they should rethink their position.
If it is formalized, then we need to decide what to do - ask for observation
status, boycott, etc.

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 3:34 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Jeremy and Adam, and all.
>
> It's so bad that the rumor sound like very much true.
>
> But, I may argue (for the sake of making clear consensus based
> on wide consideration) or ask - is the non-participation, boycotting
> the process really the best option now?
>
> Not participate to which process? Working Group only, to  which in any case
> if they exclude CS members we cannot participate.
> Or coming consultation process as a whole including on IGF and on EC?
>
> To me, rather, we need to raise our strong voice, joint letter with perhaps
> many more organizations than ICC and ISOC, and continue to "lobby",
> attend meetings, as observer then request for speaking slots etc,
> with clear reservation that we do not approve this approach.
>
> An early withdrawal may make just our presence very low in the main stage,
> unless we have a very strong and visible alternative forum.
>
> I also don't think forming joint body between CS and Private Sector
> only becomes good alternative. Unless some good number of governments
> support and/or participate, CS and PS joint is not quite
> "multi-stakeholoder"
> organ in my vew.
>
> I do not mean we should accept the decision - not at all.
> And I am open to different views.
>
> izumi
>
>
> 2010/12/8 Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>:
> > Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about
> the
> > CSTD working group is correct.
> >
> > The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and
> > Internet community is simply to not participate.  To immediately write a
> > joint letter stating we will not participate.
> >
> > Adam
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/a4cd21aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 10:11:21 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:11:21 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@[186.113.248.242]>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
 <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
 <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@[186.113.248.242]>
Message-ID: <y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@[186.113.248.242]>, at 14:26:36 on 
Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> writes
>Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about 
>the CSTD working group is correct.
>
>The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and 
>Internet community is simply to not participate.

Based on the email that Izumi quoted yesterday, about attendance at the 
CSTD session on the 17th, it does appear to be the "classic" recent CSTD 
model of [in the room] Governments, ECOSOC consultative status entities 
and WSIS accredited entities. Which excludes a wider range of 
stakeholders, but the WSIS-accredited ones are supposed to past their 
honeymoon period now, and CSTD never was open to everyone.

But if the WG doesn't even allow those other entities as observers, 
that's a step backwards.

I do also wonder if there has been so much fighting for seats on the 
non-government part of the originally proposed WG that they've decided 
that rather than disappoint some, they'll disappoint all.
-- 
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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Dec  8 10:20:10 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:20:10 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
	<C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
	<i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
	<M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
	<KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
	<151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
	<p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242>
	<y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm@mail.gmail.com>

>From what I understood, this decision was made behind closed doors with a
small number of governments. Is this the case that we contact
representatives from other countries, that have been excluded from the petit
comité to see a) what is their position on this b) if they dont agree, are
they willing to oppose it? c) how? verbally? political action?

Best,

Marilia

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@[186.113.248.242]>, at 14:26:36 on Wed,
> 8 Dec 2010, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> writes
>
>  Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about
>> the CSTD working group is correct.
>>
>> The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and
>> Internet community is simply to not participate.
>>
>
> Based on the email that Izumi quoted yesterday, about attendance at the
> CSTD session on the 17th, it does appear to be the "classic" recent CSTD
> model of [in the room] Governments, ECOSOC consultative status entities and
> WSIS accredited entities. Which excludes a wider range of stakeholders, but
> the WSIS-accredited ones are supposed to past their honeymoon period now,
> and CSTD never was open to everyone.
>
> But if the WG doesn't even allow those other entities as observers, that's
> a step backwards.
>
> I do also wonder if there has been so much fighting for seats on the
> non-government part of the originally proposed WG that they've decided that
> rather than disappoint some, they'll disappoint all.
> --
> 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
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/4fe8a953/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 10:26:52 2010
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 10:26:52 -0500
Subject: [governance] APC statement: A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand
 for freedom of information online
In-Reply-To: <023801cb961c$870df280$9529d780$@net>
References: <023801cb961c$870df280$9529d780$@net>
Message-ID: <D6F093AF-92D6-4423-833C-8B7793801F99@acm.org>

Hi,

A very fine statement.

Thanks for sharing it.

a.

On 7 Dec 2010, at 09:39, Shahzad Ahmad wrote:

> Forwarded from APC Network. There is a statement about Wikileaks. Thought
> will be of interest to you. 
> 
> Best wishes and regards
> 
> Shahzad
> 
> ---------------------------------
> 
> APC says, A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information online
> 
> JOHANNESBURG, SOUTH AFRICA TUESDAY DECEMBER 7 - The Association for
> Progressive Communications (APC) is deeply concerned about recent
> attempts by governments to limit access to online content recently
> published by whistleblower website WikiLeaks.
> 
> APC is also troubled by actions taken by private companies such as
> EveryDNS.net which disabled the domain name system services for
> WikiLeaks.org, Amazon which repealed web hosting services and Paypal
> which restricted access to WikiLeaks' account to prevent supporters from
> donating money.
> 
> APC believes that the ability to share information and communicate
> freely using the internet is vital to the realisation of human rights
> and to efforts to use the internet to contribute more accountable and
> transparent governance at global and national levels. A site like
> WikiLeaks can also play a vital role in aiding the fight against
> corruption in governments and corporations.
> 
> The APC Internet Rights Charter clearly states that:
> 
> *The internet must be protected from all attempts to silence critical
> voices and to censor social and political content or debate.
> 
> *Organisations, communities and individuals should be free to use the
> internet to organise and engage in protest.
> 
> *All information, including scientific and social research, that is
> produced with the support of public funds should be freely available to all.
> 
> As the world's longest-running online progressive network founded in
> 1990, APC has been troubled by trends over the last decade that show
> that such rights are increasingly violated and believes that the recent
> attempts to censor WikiLeaks provide additional reasons for concern.
> 
> The US government has been unable to provide evidence that lives have
> been put at risk by WikiLeaks disclosures.
> 
> APC appeals to all governments and the internet community to explicitly
> reject any form of online content control that limits freedom of
> expression and information, particularly information that contributes to
> more transparent governance, and that empowers citizens to hold their
> governments accountable. We urge them to assure the uninterrupted online
> presence of the WikiLeaks website.
> 
> A stand for WikiLeaks is a stand for freedom of information on the internet.
> 
> END
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Dec  8 10:38:58 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 13:38:58 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
	<C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
	<i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
	<M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
	<KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
	<151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
	<p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242>
	<y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikvEEZU3M4a=UQh5niqCU9XvbpYzotH5x7i-Fqo@mail.gmail.com>

I just got the information that Portugal is not in the bureau of CSTD. The
meeting that discused this issue was not a meeting of the bureau. Brazil is
in the bureau but was not in this meeting...
Who were the meeting participants? So far we have Portugal and Switzerland.
Was this an European meeting? Can someone help to clarify?

Marilia

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>wrote:

> From what I understood, this decision was made behind closed doors with a
> small number of governments. Is this the case that we contact
> representatives from other countries, that have been excluded from the petit
> comité to see a) what is their position on this b) if they dont agree, are
> they willing to oppose it? c) how? verbally? political action?
>
> Best,
>
> Marilia
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Roland Perry <
> roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@[186.113.248.242]>, at 14:26:36 on Wed,
>> 8 Dec 2010, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> writes
>>
>>  Comment at the ICANN meeting this evening is that Wolfgang's news about
>>> the CSTD working group is correct.
>>>
>>> The only reasonable option for all civil society, private sector and
>>> Internet community is simply to not participate.
>>>
>>
>> Based on the email that Izumi quoted yesterday, about attendance at the
>> CSTD session on the 17th, it does appear to be the "classic" recent CSTD
>> model of [in the room] Governments, ECOSOC consultative status entities and
>> WSIS accredited entities. Which excludes a wider range of stakeholders, but
>> the WSIS-accredited ones are supposed to past their honeymoon period now,
>> and CSTD never was open to everyone.
>>
>> But if the WG doesn't even allow those other entities as observers, that's
>> a step backwards.
>>
>> I do also wonder if there has been so much fighting for seats on the
>> non-government part of the originally proposed WG that they've decided that
>> rather than disappoint some, they'll disappoint all.
>> --
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/54e32bd1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 10:56:04 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:56:04 +0000
Subject: [governance] enhanced consultations - further inputs
In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B440@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B440@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <DuwrfNGUq6$MFAh4@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B440 at SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, 
at 16:52:50 on Tue, 7 Dec 2010, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 
writes
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> I'd start from a position that Public Policy is what's expressed in laws
>> and treaties, whereas operational policy is founded in standards
>> documents and contracts (and including Acceptable-Use Policies and Best
>> Practices). The overlaps starts when someone says "hey - let's have a
>> law or treaty that says this technical standard or contract term is
>> compulsory".
>
>The overlap starts well before that.
>
>What you are saying, in effect, is that if the government wants to 
>impose public policy concerns on the industry it must alter the 
>technical standards, or operations, or private contractual terms among 
>ISPs, hosting companies, etc.

I don't think there's a need to alter technical standards, but sometimes 
it's necessary to encourage people to use them. While interoperability 
is a strong driver for standards of content, many countries impose 
electrical standards upon modems (be they dialup, 3G or ADSL).

In terms of operations, some have had government imposed rules about 
quality-of-service, and we are nudging towards a universal service 
obligation in some places. If they don't do it already, ISPs can also 
find they are required to demonstrate their billing systems are correct, 
that they have an easily accessible dispute resolution scheme, and that 
they can provide bills suitable for the partially sighted.

As for contracts between ISPs and hosting companies, there is sometimes 
competition law which forces an incumbent [telco] to provide wholesale 
facilities to independents at a fair price.

>Conversely, if it wants to allow industry players to set standards, 
>perform operations or negotiate contracts on their own, it will have 
>little influence on public policy. That tells me the two are 
>inseparable.

Many governments prefer the industry to self-regulate, and only step in 
where there's an overlap between online and offline life. For example, a 
ban on tobacco advertising, or rules about "false advertising", being 
enforced online as well as in newspapers and on TV.

>More fundamentally (and this is a point I explore at length in Networks 
>and States), when you talk about "public policy" what "public" are you 
>talking about? On the global internet, there are 200+ national publics, 
>many more subnational publics, and several transnational or regional 
>publics involved. If so, what gives a "national" public in the form of 
>one government the right to legislate in ways that affect 20 or 30 
>other publics over which they have no legitimate authority?
>
>Communications media create their own publics.

I have some experience of "Public Relations" and I'm aware that the 
"public" isn't just the "man in the street". As you rightly say, there 
are many public constituencies. There's commonly tension between them - 
what right has a government to tell an offshore gambling site it can't 
offer its services to their citizens, who are clearly split in their own 
views about whether gambling is a bad thing or not.

Consistency is improved when, for example, the same rules are negotiated 
to apply to "all of the Stares of America" or "all countries in the 
European Union". But you are correct that deciding where between "if 
it's illegal anywhere it should be banned everywhere" and "if it's legal 
somewhere it should be legal everywhere" is the right place for people 
to pitch their tent is quite a challenge.
-- 
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  Wed Dec  8 11:00:31 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:00:31 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
 <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
 <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242>
 <y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <yfi3zZBfu6$MFAkP@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm at mail.gmail.com>, at 
13:20:10 on Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> 
writes
>From what I understood, this decision was made behind closed doors with 
>a small number of governments. Is this the case that we contact 
>representatives from other countries, that have been excluded from the 
>petit comité to see a) what is their position on this b) if they dont 
>agree, are they willing to oppose it? c) how? verbally? political action

If you want to talk to Governments (which I encourage) you should head 
for the corridor outside the GAC room in Cartagena, as soon as possible!

There's also the session in New York on the 14th.
-- 
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  Wed Dec  8 11:04:18 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:04:18 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikvEEZU3M4a=UQh5niqCU9XvbpYzotH5x7i-Fqo@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
 <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
 <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242>
 <y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikvEEZU3M4a=UQh5niqCU9XvbpYzotH5x7i-Fqo@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <QPF$HgCCy6$MFAg+@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message 
<AANLkTikvEEZU3M4a=UQh5niqCU9XvbpYzotH5x7i-Fqo at mail.gmail.com>, at 
13:38:58 on Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> 
writes
>I just got the information that Portugal is not in the bureau of CSTD. 
>The meeting that discused this issue was not a meeting of the bureau. 
>Brazil is in the bureau but was not in this meeting...
>Who were the meeting participants? So far we have Portugal and 
>Switzerland. Was this an European meeting? Can someone help to clarify

Apart from the ICANN meeting, there was also a telecoms-related session 
of the OECD in Paris on Monday and Tuesday. While absolutely not OECD 
business, maybe this was discussed in the corridors?
-- 
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 mariliamaciel at gmail.com  Wed Dec  8 11:17:08 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:17:08 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <yfi3zZBfu6$MFAkP@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
	<C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
	<MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
	<i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
	<M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
	<KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
	<3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
	<151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
	<p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242>
	<y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm@mail.gmail.com>
	<yfi3zZBfu6$MFAkP@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimJv=9cgU-i+BLTf9dkCvCfcJ4H186iZY1riWhc@mail.gmail.com>

I am unfortunately not in Cartagena, but making all contacts I can by
e-mail.
But I know some IGC members are in Cartagena. It is urgent for them to
gather as much information as possible as talk to as many government CS
friendly representatives as they can.


On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Roland Perry <
roland at internetpolicyagency.com> wrote:

> In message <AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm at mail.gmail.com<AANLkTinG%2BqeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm at mail.gmail.com>>,
> at 13:20:10 on Wed, 8 Dec 2010, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> writes
>
>  From what I understood, this decision was made behind closed doors with a
>> small number of governments. Is this the case that we contact
>> representatives from other countries, that have been excluded from the petit
>> comité to see a) what is their position on this b) if they dont agree, are
>> they willing to oppose it? c) how? verbally? political action
>>
>
> If you want to talk to Governments (which I encourage) you should head for
> the corridor outside the GAC room in Cartagena, as soon as possible!
>
> There's also the session in New York on the 14th.
>
> --
> 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
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/c2ab9ac6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 11:21:45 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:21:45 -0200
Subject: [governance] Richard Stallman: Open Letter on Sharing Licence in
 Brazil
In-Reply-To: <5E0A25F9-E74D-41C8-BA09-ED7304A37C03@rz.hu-berlin.de>
References: <5E0A25F9-E74D-41C8-BA09-ED7304A37C03@rz.hu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTimSz-Fv=7azaB2N-ra=EDoBt8PkZz70czRNuyZz@mail.gmail.com>

Richard Stallman today published an Open Letter to Brazil’s President Elect
Dilma Rousseff and the Citizens of Brazil. He congratulates Brazil on its
readiness to introduce the freedom to file-share into copyright law. He
proposes improvements to ensure that the levy goes to authors and artists
rather than to companies and to avoid favoring superstars. He also suggests
a mechanism for incentivizing foreign artists to work for the adoption of
the Sharing Licence in their own country.

in English:
http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html

in Portuguese (translated by Pablo Hess, with support by Alexandre Oliva):
http://stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.pt.html

Also see the campaign website for the Sharing Licence and sign the petition
to ensure that the „momentous improvement” of the freedom to share in
copyright law will actually happen:
http://www.compartilhamentolegal.org


Dear President Elect Rousseff and the Citizens of Brazil

In Brazil's debate over copyright law, a momentous improvement has been
suggested: freedom to share published works, in exchange for a levy
collected from Internet users over time. To recognize the usefulness to
society of Internet file sharing among the citizens will be a great advance,
but that plan raises a second question: how to use the funds collected? If
used properly, they provide the chance for a second great advance, in
support for the arts.

Publishers typically propose to use the money to "compensate" the "rights
holders" -- two bad ideas together. "Rights holders" is a disguised way of
directing the money mainly to publishers rather than artists. As for
"compensate", that concept is inappropriate, because it means to pay someone
for doing a job, or to make up for taking something away from him. Neither
of those descriptions applies to the practice of file sharing, since
listeners and viewers have not hired publishers or artists to do a job, and
sharing more copies does not take anything from them. (When they claim to be
harmed, it is by comparison with their dreams.) Publishers use the term
"compensate" to pressure others to view the issue their way.

There is no need to "compensate" anyone for citizens' file sharing, but
supporting artists is useful for the arts and for society. If Brazil adopts
a sharing license fee system, it should design the system for distribution
of the money so as to support the arts efficiently. With this system in
place, artists will benefit when people share their work and will encourage
sharing.

What is the efficient way to support the arts with these funds?

First of all, if the goal is to support artists, don't give the funds to
publishing companies instead. Supporting the publishers does little to
support artists. For instance, record companies pay musicians little or
nothing of the money that comes in from sale of records: the musicians'
record contracts are cunningly arranged so that musicians do not receive
"their" share of record sales until a record sells a tremendous number of
copies. If file sharing levy funds are distributed to record companies, they
would not reach the musicians. Book contracts are not quite as outrageous,
but even authors of best-sellers may get little. What society needs is to
support these artists and authors better.

I propose therefore to distribute the funds solely to the creative
participants, and ensure in the law that publishers cannot claim it back
from them or deduct it from money otherwise owed them.

The levy would be collected initially by the user's Internet Service
Provider. How should it travel to the artist? It might pass through the
hands of a state agency; it might pass through a collecting society,
provided that collective societies are reformed so that any group of artists
can start their own.

However, artists must not be compelled to work through the existing
collecting societies, because these may have antisocial rules. For instance,
the collecting societies of some European countries forbid their members to
publish anything under licenses that permit sharing (for instance, using any
one of the Creative Commons licenses). If Brazil's fund for supporting
artists includes foreign artists, they must not be compelled to join those
collecting societies in order to receive their shares of Brazilian funds.

Whatever chain the money follows, none of the instutions in the chain (ISP,
state agency, or collecting society) may have any authority to alter what
share goes to each artist. That should be firmly set by the rules of the
system.

But what should those rules be? What is the best way to apportion the money
among all the creative participants?

The most obvious method is to compute each artist's share in direct
proportion to her work's popularity. (Popularity can be measured by inviting
100,000 randomly chosen people to provide the lists of the works they have
played.) That's what "compensate the rights holders" proposals typically do.
But that method of distribution is not very effective for promoting the
arts, because a large fraction of the funds would go to the few superstars,
who are already rich or at least comfortable, leaving little money to
support all the artists who really need it.

I propose instead to pay each artist according to the cube root of his or
her popularity. More precisely, the system could ascertain the popularity of
each work, divide that among the work's artists to get a figure for each
artist, then compute the cube root of that, and set the artists' shares in
proportion to these cube roots.

The effect of this would be to increase the shares of moderately popular
artists by reducing the shares of superstars. Each individual superstar
would still get more than an individual non-superstar, even several times as
much, but not hundreds or thousands of times as much. With this offsetting,
a given total sum of money will adequately support a larger number of
artists.

Promoting art and authorship supporting artists and authors is the proper
goal of a sharing license fee because it is the proper goal of copyright
itself.

A final question is whether the system should support foreign authors and
artists. It would seem natural for Brazil to demand reciprocity from other
countries as a condition of giving support to their authors and artists, but
I think that would be a strategic mistake. The best way to convince other
countries to adopt a plan like this is not by pressuring them through their
artists--they won't feel the lack of these payments because they are not
accustomed to receiving any--but rather by educating their artists about the
merits of this system. Including them in the system is the way to educate
them.

Another option is to include foreign artists and authors but cut the payment
down to 1/10 when their coutries do not join in reciprocal cooperation.
Imagine telling an author, "You have received $50 from Brazil's sharing
license levy. If your country had a similar sharing license levy and made a
reciprocal agreement with Brazil, you would have received $500 from Brazil
just now, plus the amount from your own country."

I know of one possible obstacle to adopting this system in Brazil: Free
Exploitation Treaties such as the one which established the World Trade
Organization. These are designed to make governments act for the benefit of
business rather than that of the people; they are the enemies of democracy
and of most people's well-being. (We thank Lula for saving South America
from ALCA.) Some of them demand "compensation for rights holders" as part of
their general policy of favoritism for business.

Fortunately this obstacle can be surmounted. If Brazil finds itself
compelled to pay for the misguided goal of "compensating rights holders", it
can still adopt the system presented above. Here is how.

The first step towards ending an unjust dominion is to deny its legitimacy.
if Brazil is compelled to "compensate rights holders", it should denounce
that imposition as wrong and yield to it temporarily. The denunciation could
be stated in the preamble of the law itself, like this:

Whereas Brazil wishes to encourage the useful and helpful practice of
sharing published works on the Internet.

Whereas Brazil is compelled by the World Trade Organization to ransom this
freedom from the rights holders, even though that money will mainly enrich
publishers rather than supporting artists and authors.

Whereas Brazil wishes, aside from that imposed requirement, to support
artists and authors better than the existing copyright system does.

Then, after establishing a levy for the sake "compensation", establish a
second additional levy (equal or greater in amount) for supporting authors
and artists. The wasteful, misdirected plan for "compensation" should not be
a replacement for the useful, efficient plan. So implement the useful,
efficient plan that supports artists directly, because that is good for
society, and implement the "compensation" required by the WTO but only so
long as the WTO retains the power to impose it.

This will begin the transition to a new copyright system that suits the
Internet age.

Thank you for considering these suggestions.

Copyright (c) 2010 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and redistribution of
this entire page are permitted provided this notice is preserved.

----
http://www.vgrass.de/
http://waste.informatik.hu-berlin.de/Grassmuck/






_______________________________________________
A2k mailing list
A2k at lists.keionline.org
http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/dd11870e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 11:50:15 2010
From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:50:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] AW: IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0754A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net> <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B43F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0754A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinM5ivy1Kid6Nk4y8EcqOONhVEt05k0CduK-SKE@mail.gmail.com>

For any useful purpose, I can confirm that this is not in conformity with
either the letter or the spirit of the resolution drafted in the CSTD in
May, then endorsed in July at Ecosoc (and later in the GA if I am not
mistaken).

In addition, this should NOT be a decision by the CSTD bureau. This group is
NOT a CSTD group, it is a group that the CHAIR of the CSTD has to convene,
"in an open and inclusive manner".

These formulations had been chosen on purpose.

Non-participation is the way forward but only if significant governments go
along. Fallback process could be merely to have a consultation process open
to all stakeholders.

Joint document would be good, between IGC, Basis, ISOC, but also
governments, in particular in the European Union I suppose.

Bertrand



2010/12/7 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <
wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

> The decision was made in a CSTD bureau meeting yesterday at a late hour
> when only a limited number of governments where in the room. Only a very
> small group of governments, including Portugal and Switzerland, defended the
> multistakeholder model but the majority of the CSTD members in the room
> argued that it would be better for the process if the governments can
> discuss improvement - based on the input of the various stakeholders - among
> themselves.
>
> We have to wait until the official announcement.
>
> w
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Gesendet: Di 07.12.2010 22:46
> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
> Betreff: RE: IGF Improvement
>
>
>
> First, let's confirm that rumor.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Hi everybody
> >
> > there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to
> > establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only
> > working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space
> in the
> > group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental
> > members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental
> > representatives from the five host countries of the IGF.
> >
> > We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome
> >
> >
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>



-- 
____________________
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/a7330660/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From raquelgatto at uol.com.br  Wed Dec  8 12:03:41 2010
From: raquelgatto at uol.com.br (Raquel Gatto)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 15:03:41 -0200
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimJv=9cgU-i+BLTf9dkCvCfcJ4H186iZY1riWhc@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org> <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
	<i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com> <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net> <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
	<KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com> <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
	<p06240817c924c68e2dd5@186.113.248.242> <y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com> <AANLkTinG+qeDvX-Z7V4fSF66qLGiUZ2uYWSxCkXJDLbm@mail.gmail.com> <yfi3zZBfu6$MFAkP@internetpolicyagency.com>
	<AANLkTimJv=9cgU-i+BLTf9dkCvCfcJ4H186iZY1riWhc@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4cffba6d102f2_5c651062167c2eb@weasel16.tmail>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/f46eabb7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 12:55:14 2010
From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:55:14 +0000
Subject: [governance] AW: IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinM5ivy1Kid6Nk4y8EcqOONhVEt05k0CduK-SKE@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B43F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0754A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTinM5ivy1Kid6Nk4y8EcqOONhVEt05k0CduK-SKE@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C758ADD26@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>

Just wanted to add a quick note in favour of a joint doc.  So many different people have made public statements about their support of the IGF in terms of its multi-stakeholder structure and form, that I'm sure we could get good support for a joint statement.......

Best,
Lisa

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle
Sent: 08 December 2010 16:50
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
Cc: Milton L Mueller
Subject: Re: [governance] AW: IGF Improvement

For any useful purpose, I can confirm that this is not in conformity with either the letter or the spirit of the resolution drafted in the CSTD in May, then endorsed in July at Ecosoc (and later in the GA if I am not mistaken).

In addition, this should NOT be a decision by the CSTD bureau. This group is NOT a CSTD group, it is a group that the CHAIR of the CSTD has to convene, "in an open and inclusive manner".

These formulations had been chosen on purpose.

Non-participation is the way forward but only if significant governments go along. Fallback process could be merely to have a consultation process open to all stakeholders.

Joint document would be good, between IGC, Basis, ISOC, but also governments, in particular in the European Union I suppose.

Bertrand


2010/12/7 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de<mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>>
The decision was made in a CSTD bureau meeting yesterday at a late hour when only a limited number of governments where in the room. Only a very small group of governments, including Portugal and Switzerland, defended the multistakeholder model but the majority of the CSTD members in the room argued that it would be better for the process if the governments can discuss improvement - based on the input of the various stakeholders - among themselves.

We have to wait until the official announcement.

w



________________________________

Von: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu<mailto:mueller at syr.edu>]
Gesendet: Di 07.12.2010 22:46
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang
Betreff: RE: IGF Improvement



First, let's confirm that rumor.

> -----Original Message-----
>
> Hi everybody
>
> there is some rumor here in Cartagena that the UNCSTD has just decided to
> establish the Working Group for IGF improvement as a government only
> working group. Neither private sector nor civil society will have a space in the
> group. They are just excluded. The group will have 15 governmental
> members (three from each UN region) plus five governmental
> representatives from the five host countries of the IGF.
>
> We are back in 2001. What should we do? Comments are welcome
>
>


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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



--
____________________
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")

______________________________________________________________________
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/83973b25/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 16:33:38 2010
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 16:33:38 -0500
Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Project Headlines
Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC108DFF1@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>

[http://internetgovernance.org/images/IGP_logo_Masthead2.gif]

December 08, 2010

Why Wikileaks polarizes America's Internet politics
Why ICANN should ignore the NTIA's letter
How to discredit net neutrality
Ownership rights in IP addresses? A legal analysis
Upcoming Event: "Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance" at NYU, December 14
Search Internet Governance Project Headlines<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?Search=175425>
________________________________
Why Wikileaks polarizes America's Internet politics <http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=52198140&f=175425&u=11399627&c=3931817>

At IGP we pride ourselves on having a pretty good bead on internet governance issues, but we have to admit that the emergence of Wikileaks as a global governance issue took us by surprise. The internet has proven itself to be a source of political disruption in a way we did not anticipate.
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png]<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/_qbbdBxI4wU/4698146.html>  • Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/_qbbdBxI4wU/4698146.html;Why%20Wikileaks%20polarizes%20America's%20Internet%20politics;3931817> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Main%20Page;Why%20Wikileaks%20polarizes%20America's%20Internet%20politics;3931817> • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] <http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~3%2f_qbbdBxI4wU%2f4698146.html&src=5> •


Why ICANN should ignore the NTIA's letter <http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=52117246&f=175425&u=11399627&c=3931817>

Like a clinging, overbearing parent, the U.S. Commerce Department just can’t seem to let go of ICANN. Yesterday Lawrence Strickling, the Assistant Secretary in charge of the NTIA, sent a stern letter to the ICANN’s CEO in an attempt to dictate the course of domain name policy. Strickling called for yet another delay in the implementation of new top level domains because - incredibly - he claims that the issue hasn’t been studied enough! Strickling thus ignores ten years of research, deliberation and debate both inside and outside ICANN – some of it commissioned by the Commerce Department itself. Here's a little bedtime reading to bring Strickling and the rest of the NTIA up to speed on the ongoing debate over the economic implications of new top level domains.
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png]<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/sWRWZ_emPNQ/4694980.html>  • Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/sWRWZ_emPNQ/4694980.html;Why%20ICANN%20should%20ignore%20the%20NTIA's%20letter;3931817> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Main%20Page;Why%20ICANN%20should%20ignore%20the%20NTIA's%20letter;3931817> • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] <http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~3%2fsWRWZ_emPNQ%2f4694980.html&src=5> •


How to discredit net neutrality <http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=52117247&f=175425&u=11399627&c=3931817>

On Tuesday (November 30) Internet backbone provider Level3 publicly accused cable-based ISP Comcast of trying to thwart competing video services delivered through the internet. There is an important lesson to be drawn from this peering dispute about how to pursue - and not to pursue - the goals of Internet freedom associated with net neutrality.
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png]<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/z2lYC91J2wE/4694075.html>  • Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/z2lYC91J2wE/4694075.html;How%20to%20discredit%20net%20neutrality;3931817> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Main%20Page;How%20to%20discredit%20net%20neutrality;3931817> • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] <http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~3%2fz2lYC91J2wE%2f4694075.html&src=5> •


Ownership rights in IP addresses? A legal analysis <http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=51980965&f=175425&u=11399627&c=3931817>

A new paper on ownership rights in IPv4 addresses has been drafted; it is posted here<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf>. Author Ernesto Rubi is a J.D. candidate at Florida International University School of Law. The paper explores the legal framework (or rather, the lack thereof) surrounding IP addresses. The depletion of the IPv4 free pool will, the author contends, intensify arguments about ownership interests in ipv4 address blocks. He concludes that “the concept of IP number ‘ownership’ or claim of right may be inevitable.”
[http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png]<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/J5iO8XxXJ3g/4691769.html>  • Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/J5iO8XxXJ3g/4691769.html;Ownership%20rights%20in%20IP%20addresses?%20A%20legal%20analysis;3931817> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Main%20Page;Ownership%20rights%20in%20IP%20addresses?%20A%20legal%20analysis;3931817> • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] <http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~3%2fJ5iO8XxXJ3g%2f4691769.html&src=5> •


Upcoming Event: "Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance" at NYU, December 14 <http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=52221327&f=175425&u=11399627&c=3931817>

ISOC-NY<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://www.isoc-ny.org> is delighted to present Milton Mueller’s first full exposition of his new book Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262014599/ref=nosim/intergoverpro-20> at NYU on Tuesday December 14 2010. Prof. Mueller is a co-founder of ICANN’s NonCommercial User’s Constituency and a renowned cyberlibertarian. His 2002 book Ruling the Root<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://books.google.com/books?id=sMKmdJq7iE0C> has long been the definitive work on governance. We are excited to hear details of what, in his mind, has changed in the last 8 years. This event is open to the public and will be webcast live.

What: Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance
When: Tuesday December 14 2010 : 7-9pm
Where: Rm 317, Warren Weaver Hall NYU, 251 Mercer St NYC (& W. 4 St)
Who: Public welcome. No RSVP needed. Photo ID required.
Webcast: http://www.livestream.com/isocny<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://www.livestream.com/isocny>
Hashtag: #isocny
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175907139093951<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175907139093951>
Calendar: Add to Google Calendar<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=MTljYml1NDNmNzY0MXA1dDRrcDJ1dTFvNHMgbmdxNmg1MmVpZWNyMXVxbnE5M3BicGx2ajhAZw&tmsrc=ngq6h52eiecr1uqnq93pbplvj8%40group.calendar.google.com>

[http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/icons/fblike.png]<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/cRzjIwa_eK4/4698964.html>  • Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IGPBlogCombined/~3/cRzjIwa_eK4/4698964.html;Upcoming%20Event:%20%22Networks%20and%20States:%20The%20Global%20Politics%20of%20Internet%20Governance%22%20at%20NYU,%20December%2014;3931817> • Article Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Events;Upcoming%20Event:%20%22Networks%20and%20States:%20The%20Global%20Politics%20of%20Internet%20Governance%22%20at%20NYU,%20December%2014;3931817> • [http://assets.feedblitz.com/images/audio.png] <http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399627/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f~r%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f~3%2fcRzjIwa_eK4%2f4698964.html&src=5> •




Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz<http://www.feedblitz.com>, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/a8efb65d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From bnkuerbi at syr.edu  Wed Dec  8 17:07:46 2010
From: bnkuerbi at syr.edu (Brenden Kuerbis)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 17:07:46 -0500
Subject: [governance] Fwd: Internet Governance Project Headlines
In-Reply-To: <MAIL03ekQSWe0rqZvi700013cd3@mail03.feedblitz.com>
References: <MAIL03ekQSWe0rqZvi700013cd3@mail03.feedblitz.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=KwhGWTE+B2UCv4SEM=kOzM_J+Y4gpWZJnLw6_@mail.gmail.com>

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Internet Governance Project <info at internetgovernance.org>
Date: Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:24 PM
Subject: [IGP-CORE] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines
To: IGP at listserv.syr.edu


 [image: Internet Governance Project]

December 08, 2010

Why Wikileaks polarizes America's Internet politics <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_0>
Why ICANN should ignore the NTIA's letter <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_1>
How to discredit net neutrality <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_2>
Ownership rights in IP addresses? A legal analysis <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_3>
Upcoming Event: "Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet
Governance" at NYU, December 14 <#12cc7e8a55c7a1e5_4>
Search Internet Governance Project
Headlines<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?Search=175425>
------------------------------
Why Wikileaks polarizes America's Internet politics
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=52198140&f=175425&u=11399494&c=3931817>

At IGP we pride ourselves on having a pretty good bead on internet
governance issues, but we have to admit that the emergence of Wikileaks as a
global governance issue took us by surprise. The internet has proven itself
to be a source of political disruption in a way we did not anticipate.
<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/_qbbdBxI4wU/4698146.html>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/_qbbdBxI4wU/4698146.html;Why+Wikileaks+polarizes+America%27s+Internet+politics;3931817>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Main+Page;Why+Wikileaks+polarizes+America%27s+Internet+politics;3931817>•
<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2f_qbbdBxI4wU%2f4698146.html&src=5>•

 Why ICANN should ignore the NTIA's letter
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=52117246&f=175425&u=11399494&c=3931817>

Like a clinging, overbearing parent, the U.S. Commerce Department just can’t
seem to let go of ICANN. Yesterday Lawrence Strickling, the Assistant
Secretary in charge of the NTIA, sent a stern letter to the ICANN’s CEO in
an attempt to dictate the course of domain name policy. Strickling called
for yet another delay in the implementation of new top level domains because
- incredibly - he claims that the issue hasn’t been studied enough!
Strickling thus ignores ten years of research, deliberation and debate both
inside and outside ICANN – some of it commissioned by the Commerce
Department itself. Here's a little bedtime reading to bring Strickling and
the rest of the NTIA up to speed on the ongoing debate over the economic
implications of new top level domains.
<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/sWRWZ_emPNQ/4694980.html>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/sWRWZ_emPNQ/4694980.html;Why+ICANN+should+ignore+the+NTIA%27s+letter;3931817>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Main+Page;Why+ICANN+should+ignore+the+NTIA%27s+letter;3931817>•
<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2fsWRWZ_emPNQ%2f4694980.html&src=5>•

 How to discredit net neutrality
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=52117247&f=175425&u=11399494&c=3931817>

On Tuesday (November 30) Internet backbone provider Level3 publicly accused
cable-based ISP Comcast of trying to thwart competing video services
delivered through the internet. There is an important lesson to be drawn
from this peering dispute about how to pursue - and not to pursue - the
goals of Internet freedom associated with net neutrality.
<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/z2lYC91J2wE/4694075.html>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/z2lYC91J2wE/4694075.html;How+to+discredit+net+neutrality;3931817>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Main+Page;How+to+discredit+net+neutrality;3931817>•
<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2fz2lYC91J2wE%2f4694075.html&src=5>•

 Ownership rights in IP addresses? A legal analysis
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=51980965&f=175425&u=11399494&c=3931817>

A new paper on ownership rights in IPv4 addresses has been drafted; it
is posted
here<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://ciara.fiu.edu/publications/Rubi%20-%20Property%20Rights%20in%20IP%20Numbers.pdf>.
Author Ernesto Rubi is a J.D. candidate at Florida International University
School of Law. The paper explores the legal framework (or rather, the lack
thereof) surrounding IP addresses. The depletion of the IPv4 free pool will,
the author contends, intensify arguments about ownership interests in ipv4
address blocks. He concludes that “the concept of IP number ‘ownership’ or
claim of right may be inevitable.”
<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/J5iO8XxXJ3g/4691769.html>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/J5iO8XxXJ3g/4691769.html;Ownership+rights+in+IP+addresses?+A+legal+analysis;3931817>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Main+Page;Ownership+rights+in+IP+addresses?+A+legal+analysis;3931817>•
<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2fJ5iO8XxXJ3g%2f4691769.html&src=5>•

 Upcoming Event: "Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet
Governance" at NYU, December 14
<http://feedblitz.com/r.asp?l=52221327&f=175425&u=11399494&c=3931817>

ISOC-NY<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://www.isoc-ny.org>is
delighted to present Milton Mueller’s first full exposition of his new
book Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet
Governance<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0262014599/ref=nosim/intergoverpro-20>at
NYU on Tuesday December 14 2010. Prof. Mueller is a co-founder of
ICANN’s
NonCommercial User’s Constituency and a renowned cyberlibertarian. His 2002
book Ruling the
Root<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://books.google.com/books?id=sMKmdJq7iE0C>has
long been the definitive work on governance. We are excited to hear
details of what, in his mind, has changed in the last 8 years. This event is
open to the public and will be webcast live.

*What:* Networks and States: The Global Politics of Internet Governance
*When:* Tuesday December 14 2010 : 7-9pm
*Where:* Rm 317, Warren Weaver Hall NYU, 251 Mercer St NYC (& W. 4 St)
*Who:* Public welcome. No RSVP needed. Photo ID required.
*Webcast:* http://www.livestream.com/isocny<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://www.livestream.com/isocny>
*Hashtag:* #isocny
*Facebook:* http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175907139093951<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=175907139093951>
*Calendar:* Add to Google
Calendar<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/https://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=TEMPLATE&tmeid=MTljYml1NDNmNzY0MXA1dDRrcDJ1dTFvNHMgbmdxNmg1MmVpZWNyMXVxbnE5M3BicGx2ajhAZw&tmsrc=ngq6h52eiecr1uqnq93pbplvj8%40group.calendar.google.com>
<http://www.feedblitz.com/f?FBLike=http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/cRzjIwa_eK4/4698964.html>
• Email to a friend<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Fwd2FriendEdit=175425;5220744;http://feedproxy.google.com/%7Er/IGPBlogCombined/%7E3/cRzjIwa_eK4/4698964.html;Upcoming+Event:+%22Networks+and+States:+The+Global+Politics+of+Internet+Governance%22+at+NYU,+December+14;3931817>•
Article
Search<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Search=175425;5220744;Events;Upcoming+Event:+%22Networks+and+States:+The+Global+Politics+of+Internet+Governance%22+at+NYU,+December+14;3931817>•
<http://www.feedblitz.com/t2.asp?/175425/11399494/3931817/http://www.talkr.com/app/text_to_audio.app?feed_url=http%3a%2f%2ffeeds.feedburner.com%2fIGPBlogCombined&permalink=http%3a%2f%2ffeedproxy.google.com%2f%7Er%2fIGPBlogCombined%2f%7E3%2fcRzjIwa_eK4%2f4698964.html&src=5>•


   ------------------------------
*Click here to safely unsubscribe
now<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?EmailRemove=_MTEzOTk0OTR8MTc1NDI1fGlncEBsaXN0c2Vydi5zeXIuZWR1fDM5MzE4MTc=_>from
"Internet Governance Project Headlines" or change
your subscription <http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Subscriptions=175425>, view
mailing archives <http://archive.feedblitz.com/175425> or
subscribe<http://www.feedblitz.com/f/f.fbz?Sub=175425>
<http://www.feedblitz.com/f>*
------------------------------
------------------------------
Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz<http://www.feedblitz.com>,
LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/370b258f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Dec  8 19:53:28 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:53:28 +0900
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,

The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.

I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
ICANN, ccNSO etc.

Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
but in this
special case, we may not have that luxury of time.

I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.

I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.

Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
needed and important for us.

I hope you understand and support this.

best,

izumi

------------------
DRAFT

To Frederic Riehl
Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD

We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
will be composed exclusively of member states.
This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
the creation of the IGF itself:

We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
proposals for action…

We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
September 2010.

The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
acceptable.

In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums”.

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

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  Wed Dec  8 20:26:43 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:26:43 -0500
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Ixumi,

Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately.

Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs for any objections to surface on the list. 

If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done.

My 2 centavos on how to play this.

Lee

PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on 14th as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can help make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then.
________________________________________
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [iza at anr.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM
To: Governance List
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments

Dear list,

The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.

I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
ICANN, ccNSO etc.

Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
but in this
special case, we may not have that luxury of time.

I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.

I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.

Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
needed and important for us.

I hope you understand and support this.

best,

izumi

------------------
DRAFT

To Frederic Riehl
Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD

We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
will be composed exclusively of member states.
This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
the creation of the IGF itself:

We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
proposals for action…

We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
September 2010.

The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
acceptable.

In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums”.

------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com  Wed Dec  8 20:29:53 2010
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (jam at jacquelinemorris.com)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 01:29:53 +0000
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD
 WGcomposition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <717636796-1291858013-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-781369243-@bda820.bisx.prod.on.blackberry>

Yes, we should sign!
Jacqueline
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

-----Original Message-----
From: Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Sender: izumiaizu at gmail.com
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:53:28 
To: Governance List<governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Reply-To: governance at lists.cpsr.org,Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments

Dear list,

The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.

I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
ICANN, ccNSO etc.

Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
but in this
special case, we may not have that luxury of time.

I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.

I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.

Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
needed and important for us.

I hope you understand and support this.

best,

izumi

------------------
DRAFT

To Frederic Riehl
Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD

We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
will be composed exclusively of member states.
This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
the creation of the IGF itself:

We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
proposals for action…

We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
September 2010.

The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
acceptable.

In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums”.

------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com  Wed Dec  8 20:30:47 2010
From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:30:47 +0900
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=kxf0QDBkddp3EVx6N72cgo_dCvRsuxFN_Bk1f@mail.gmail.com>

I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and the
need to act quickly
Rafik



2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>

> Ixumi,
>
> Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately.
>
> Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since
> the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for
> our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs
> for any objections to surface on the list.
>
> If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done.
>
> My 2 centavos on how to play this.
>
> Lee
>
> PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on 14th
> as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can help
> make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then.
> ________________________________________
> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [
> iza at anr.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM
> To: Governance List
> Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
> composition only by governments
>
> Dear list,
>
> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
>
> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>
> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking
> IGC
> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
>
> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
> but in this
> special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
>
> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.
>
> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
>
> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
> needed and important for us.
>
> I hope you understand and support this.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
> ------------------
> DRAFT
>
> To Frederic Riehl
> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>
> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
> that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
> will be composed exclusively of member states.
> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
> the creation of the IGF itself:
>
> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
> proposals for action…
>
> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
> September 2010.
>
> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
> acceptable.
>
> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> international organizations and forums”.
>
> ------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/d5151251/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 20:36:47 2010
From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:36:47 -0200
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=kxf0QDBkddp3EVx6N72cgo_dCvRsuxFN_Bk1f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
	<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
	<AANLkTi=kxf0QDBkddp3EVx6N72cgo_dCvRsuxFN_Bk1f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinio1fW+JGp1mRMvYBHpwqQdM5F=DrxB-FfWOLM@mail.gmail.com>

I agree that we sign it as well.

That does not hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with any
additional point we believe it would be important to make.

On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:

> I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and the
> need to act quickly
> Rafik
>
>
>
> 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>
> Ixumi,
>>
>> Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately.
>>
>> Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since
>> the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for
>> our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs
>> for any objections to surface on the list.
>>
>> If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done.
>>
>> My 2 centavos on how to play this.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on
>> 14th as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can
>> help make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then.
>> ________________________________________
>> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU [
>> iza at anr.org]
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM
>> To: Governance List
>> Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
>> composition only by governments
>>
>> Dear list,
>>
>> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
>> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
>>
>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
>> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
>> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
>> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>>
>> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking
>> IGC
>> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
>>
>> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
>> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
>> but in this
>> special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
>>
>> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
>> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
>> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.
>>
>> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
>> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
>> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
>> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
>>
>> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
>> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
>> needed and important for us.
>>
>> I hope you understand and support this.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------------
>> DRAFT
>>
>> To Frederic Riehl
>> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>>
>> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
>> that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
>> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
>> will be composed exclusively of member states.
>> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
>> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
>> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
>> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
>> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
>> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
>> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
>> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
>> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
>> the creation of the IGF itself:
>>
>> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
>> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
>> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
>> proposals for action…
>>
>> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
>> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
>> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
>> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
>> September 2010.
>>
>> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
>> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
>> acceptable.
>>
>> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
>> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
>> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
>> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
>> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
>> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
>> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
>> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
>> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>> international organizations and forums”.
>>
>> ------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>



-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/05f4990a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  8 20:38:47 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 21:38:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinio1fW+JGp1mRMvYBHpwqQdM5F=DrxB-FfWOLM@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F29@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=kxf0QDBkddp3EVx6N72cgo_dCvRsuxFN_Bk1f@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinio1fW+JGp1mRMvYBHpwqQdM5F=DrxB-FfWOLM@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinaD4gNdLVP06G+1tUBwo-6LYLHcA+iZ01kro=9@mail.gmail.com>

I agree too
Deirdre

On 8 December 2010 21:36, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that we sign it as well.
>
> That does not hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with any
> additional point we believe it would be important to make.
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and the
>> need to act quickly
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>
>> Ixumi,
>>>
>>> Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately.
>>>
>>> Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since
>>> the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for
>>> our co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs
>>> for any objections to surface on the list.
>>>
>>> If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done.
>>>
>>> My 2 centavos on how to play this.
>>>
>>> Lee
>>>
>>> PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on
>>> 14th as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can
>>> help make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then.
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
>>> [iza at anr.org]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM
>>> To: Governance List
>>> Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
>>> composition only by governments
>>>
>>> Dear list,
>>>
>>> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
>>> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
>>>
>>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
>>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
>>> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
>>> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
>>> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>>>
>>> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and
>>> asking IGC
>>> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
>>>
>>> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
>>> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
>>> but in this
>>> special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
>>>
>>> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
>>> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
>>> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.
>>>
>>> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
>>> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
>>> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
>>> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
>>>
>>> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
>>> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
>>> needed and important for us.
>>>
>>> I hope you understand and support this.
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> izumi
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>> DRAFT
>>>
>>> To Frederic Riehl
>>> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>>>
>>> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
>>> that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
>>> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
>>> will be composed exclusively of member states.
>>> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
>>> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
>>> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
>>> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
>>> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
>>> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
>>> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
>>> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
>>> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
>>> the creation of the IGF itself:
>>>
>>> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
>>> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
>>> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
>>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>>> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
>>> proposals for action…
>>>
>>> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
>>> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
>>> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
>>> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
>>> September 2010.
>>>
>>> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
>>> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
>>> acceptable.
>>>
>>> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
>>> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
>>> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
>>> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
>>> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
>>> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
>>> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
>>> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
>>> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
>>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>>> international organizations and forums”.
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
> FGV Direito Rio
>
> Center for Technology and Society
> Getulio Vargas Foundation
> Rio de Janeiro - Brazil
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/85fff16e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  8 21:11:02 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:11:02 -0800
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinaD4gNdLVP06G+1tUBwo-6LYLHcA+iZ01kro=9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1C857AA3338044A09FBFDFE3EE2EC7BD@userPC>

I'm okay with signing onto this immediately.
 
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:39 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia Maciel
Subject: Re: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
composition only by governments


I agree too 
Deirdre


On 8 December 2010 21:36, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com> wrote:


I agree that we sign it as well.

That does not hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with any
additional point we believe it would be important to make. 


On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
wrote:


I agree, and I support signing it too because the time constraint and the
need to act quickly

Rafik




2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> 


Ixumi,

Well done, I support IGC signing on immediately.

Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a coalition and since the
letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one expedient manouver is for our
co-coordinators to sign on like - right now - while you wait say 12hrs for
any objections to surface on the list.

If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and we're done.

My 2 centavos on how to play this.

Lee

PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton and maybe Avri in NYC on 14th
as I have another event to attend that evening there. If I do I can help
make some - semi-polite - noise over this if still necessary, then.
________________________________________
From: izumiaizu at gmail.com [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
[iza at anr.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM
To: Governance List
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
composition only by governments


Dear list,

The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.

I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
ICANN, ccNSO etc.

Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking
IGC
to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
but in this
special case, we may not have that luxury of time.

I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.

I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.

Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
needed and important for us.

I hope you understand and support this.

best,

izumi

------------------
DRAFT

To Frederic Riehl
Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD

We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau's decision
that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
will be composed exclusively of member states.
This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
the creation of the IGF itself:

We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
proposals for action.

We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair's
recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
September 2010.

The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
acceptable.

In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
formulation ensuring "the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums".

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





-- 
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade
FGV Direito Rio

Center for Technology and Society
Getulio Vargas Foundation
Rio de Janeiro - Brazil

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/4796229d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  8 21:11:23 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:11:23 +0800
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FD97AFA1-447C-4031-A84F-266902BBFED2@ciroap.org>

On 09/12/2010, at 8:53 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:

> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
> 
> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

This all happened while I was asleep, but I agree we should sign and send immediately, and I think it supersedes our earlier draft as IGC that the coordinators and CSTD nominees had been working on.

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/0898418f/attachment.bin>

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Dec  8 21:14:25 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:14:25 +1100
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <1C857AA3338044A09FBFDFE3EE2EC7BD@userPC>
Message-ID: <C92686B1.14425%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

Yep lets just do it



From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:11:02 -0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, 'Deirdre Williams'
<williams.deirdre at gmail.com>, 'Marilia Maciel' <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
composition only by governments

I'm okay with signing onto this immediately.
 
Mike
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org]  On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08,  2010 5:39 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia  Maciel
> Subject: Re: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter  protesting CSTD WG
> composition only by governments
> 
> I agree  too 
> Deirdre
> 
>  
> On 8 December 2010 21:36, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>  wrote:
>  
>> I agree that we sign it as well.
>> 
>> That does not  hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with any
>> additional  point we believe it would be important to make.
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>  
>>>  
>>> I agree, and I support signing it too because the time  constraint and the
>>> need to act quickly
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> 
>>>  
>>>> Ixumi,
>>>> 
>>>> Well done, I support IGC signing on  immediately.
>>>> 
>>>> Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a  coalition and since
>>>> the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one  expedient manouver is
>>>> for our co-coordinators to sign on like - right  now - while you wait say
>>>> 12hrs for any objections to surface on the  list.
>>>> 
>>>> If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and  we're done.
>>>> 
>>>> My 2 centavos on how to play  this.
>>>> 
>>>> Lee
>>>> 
>>>> PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton  and maybe Avri in NYC on
>>>> 14th as I have another event to attend that  evening there. If I do I can
>>>> help make some - semi-polite - noise over  this if still necessary,  then.
>>>> ________________________________________
>>>> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com  [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU
>>>> [iza at anr.org]
>>>> Sent:  Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM
>>>> To: Governance List
>>>> Subject:  [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
>>>> composition only by governments
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> 
>>>> Dear list,
>>>> 
>>>> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD  WG only by governments
>>>> is now proven to be true, decided by very few  members of CSTD.
>>>> 
>>>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the  joint letter work we had on
>>>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced  cooperation. They shared the same
>>>> concern and worked out with many  others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
>>>> meeting including ICANN, government  folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
>>>> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>>>> 
>>>> Here is the  draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking
>>>> IGC
>>>> to  join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost  final.
>>>> 
>>>> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or  suggestions,
>>>> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need  48 hours to decide,
>>>> but in this
>>>> special case, we may not have that  luxury of time.
>>>> 
>>>> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the  complication), and now
>>>> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD  WG. My suggestion is
>>>> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in  addition to the joint one.
>>>> 
>>>> I will post that draft in a separate  email and welcome your comments.
>>>> We will send that and perhaps make  statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
>>>> if they do not change their decision.  We will also include that and
>>>> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation  meeting in New York.
>>>> 
>>>> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this  could happen, and I think
>>>> acting quickly to keep the  Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
>>>> needed and important for  us.
>>>> 
>>>> I hope you understand and support  this.
>>>> 
>>>> best,
>>>> 
>>>> izumi
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------
>>>> DRAFT
>>>> 
>>>> To  Frederic Riehl
>>>> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>>>> 
>>>> We are surprised and  deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau¹s decision
>>>> that  the Working  Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
>>>> (2010/2) of the  United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
>>>> will be composed  exclusively of member states.
>>>> This ECOSOC resolution, which was  initially negotiated during the CSTD
>>>> in May 2010 by or in the  presence of many of the signatories below,
>>>> asked the Chair of the  CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
>>>> compile and review  inputs from all Member States and all other
>>>> stakeholders on  improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
>>>> in line with the  mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
>>>> These words are a clear  reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
>>>> Action (Geneva 2003)  that led to the establishment of the very
>>>> successful Working Group on  Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
>>>> the creation of the IGF  itself:
>>>> 
>>>> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set  up a working
>>>> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive  process that
>>>> ensures a mechanism for the full and active  participation of
>>>> governments, the private sector and civil society  from both developing
>>>> and developed countries, involving relevant  intergovernmental and
>>>> international organizations and forums, to  investigate and make
>>>> proposals for actionŠ
>>>> 
>>>> We therefore  expected that the composition of the Working Group would
>>>> be strongly  inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up  the
>>>> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD  Vice-Chair¹s
>>>> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened  on 16
>>>> September 2010.
>>>> 
>>>> The format decided by the Bureau of the  CSTD is contrary to both the
>>>> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC  resolution and is therefore not
>>>> acceptable.
>>>> 
>>>> In any event, it  is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
>>>> decision on this  matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
>>>> rather a Working  Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
>>>> instructed by the  ECOSOC resolution.
>>>> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of  implementing the
>>>> request made to her. In light of that and the above  information we
>>>> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to  establish an
>>>> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with  the WSIS
>>>> formulation ensuring ³the full and active participation  of
>>>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both  developing
>>>> and developed countries, involving relevant  intergovernmental and
>>>> international organizations and  forums².
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You  received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> To be removed from the  list, send any message to:
>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Centro de Tecnologia e  Sociedade
>> FGV Direito Rio
>> 
>> Center for Technology and  Society
>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>> Rio de Janeiro -  Brazil
>> 
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You  received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To  be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>> 
>> For  all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>> 
>> Translate  this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ³The 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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/482056f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From iza at anr.org  Wed Dec  8 21:15:55 2010
From: iza at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 11:15:55 +0900
Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition
Message-ID: <AANLkTimBm3tizbd4tyV-Z=8oR-8GQerx2rBHh0f4xJ=q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear list,
Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC,
NOT the joint one which I sent earlier.

As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG
for both substance and the tone/style.

I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end
of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is
a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and
b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier

Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final
wording as much as possible.

best,

izumi

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

Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey
Chairperson
UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development

His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl,
Vice Chairperson,
UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development


Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl,

Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process.

We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will
comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private
Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no
official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if
the above mentioned is indeed true.

In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned,
would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is
apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC
resolution,  for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive
manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be
communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to
identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present
process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this
important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the
Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in
letter and spirit.

The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF
consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working
Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method.

As the Chair’s Summary says:
*It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character
and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and
should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of
the CSTD Working Group on the IGF.

Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was
essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of
representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the
private sector.

A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model
of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in
the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive
manner”
*

In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not
in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil
society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from
the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to
the continued development and success of building the people-centered
Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles
including that "The international management of the Internet should be
multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organizations.”

We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we
do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some
additional time.

We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have
acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible
consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole
ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a
unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all
stakeholders.

We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that
our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear
that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to
the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been
built among  the stakeholders since WSIS.  A lack of meaningful
multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant,
and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this
crucial time.

We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest.

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/b8fc9a7d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  8 21:39:15 2010
From: gurstein at gmail.com (Michael Gurstein)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:39:15 -0800
Subject: [governance] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or
 shut down the net. It's your choice
Message-ID: <F4D5DBF97F6646EDB4DC17BBB1F1E3EE@userPC>


Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice

here it is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democ
racies-must-live-with-leaks 

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

'Never waste a good crisis" used to be the catchphrase of the Obama team in
the runup to the presidential election. In that spirit, let us see what we
can learn from official reactions to the WikiLeaks
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables> revelations.

The most obvious lesson is that it represents the first really sustained
confrontation between the established order and the culture of the internet.
There have been skirmishes before, but this is the real thing.

And as the backlash unfolds - first with deniable attacks
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-server
s-amazon> on internet service providers hosting WikiLeaks, later with
companies like Amazon and eBay and PayPal
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11917891>  suddenly "discovering"
that their terms and conditions preclude them from offering services to
WikiLeaks, and then with the US government attempting to intimidate Columbia
students posting updates about WikiLeaks on Facebook - the intolerance of
the old order is emerging from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been
obscured. The response has been vicious, co-ordinated and potentially
comprehensive, and it contains hard lessons for everyone who cares about
democracy and about the future of the net.

There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is now the so-called liberal
democracies that are clamouring to shut WikiLeaks down.

Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have changed
in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary Clinton made a
landmark speech about internet freedom, in Washington DC, which many people
welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to China for its alleged
cyberattack on Google. "Information has never been so free," declared
Clinton. "Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping
people discover new facts and making governments more accountable."

She went on to relate how, during his visit to China in November 2009,
Barack Obama had "defended the right of people to freely access information,
and said that the more freely information flows the stronger societies
become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold
their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages
creativity." Given what we now know, that Clinton speech reads like a
satirical masterpiece.

One thing that might explain the official hysteria about the revelations is
the way they expose how political elites in western democracies have been
deceiving their electorates.

The leaks make it abundantly clear not just that the US-Anglo-European
adventure in Afghanistan is doomed but, more important, that the American,
British and other Nato governments privately admit that too.

The problem is that they cannot face their electorates - who also happen to
be the taxpayers funding this folly - and tell them this. The leaked
dispatches from the US ambassador to Afghanistan provide vivid confirmation
that the Karzai regime is as corrupt and incompetent as the South Vietnamese
regime in Saigon was when the US was propping it up in the 1970s. And they
also make it clear that the US is as much a captive of that regime as it was
in Vietnam.

The WikiLeaks revelations expose the extent to which the US and its allies
see no real prospect of turning Afghanistan into a viable state, let alone a
functioning democracy. They show that there is no light at the end of this
tunnel. But the political establishments in Washington, London and Brussels
cannot bring themselves to admit this.

Afghanistan is, in that sense, a quagmire in the same way that Vietnam was.
The only differences are that the war is now being fought by non-conscripted
troops and we are not carpet-bombing civilians.

The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who has
rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. These are
firms like Google, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace and Amazon which host your blog
or store your data on their servers somewhere on the internet, or which
enable you to rent "virtual" computers - again located somewhere on the net.
The terms and conditions under which they provide both "free" and paid-for
services will always give them grounds for dropping your content if they
deem it in their interests to do so. The moral is that you should not put
your faith in cloud computing - one day it will rain on your parade.

Look at the case of Amazon, which dropped WikiLeaks from its Elastic Compute
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Elastic_Compute_Cloud> Cloud the moment
the going got rough. It seems that Joe Lieberman, a US senator who suffers
from a terminal case of hubris, harassed the company over the matter. Later
Lieberman declared grandly that he would be "asking Amazon about the extent
of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other web service
providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used
to distribute stolen, classified information". This led the New Yorker's Amy
<http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/12/banishing-wikileaks
.html> Davidson to ask whether "Lieberman feels that he, or any senator, can
call in the company running the New Yorker's printing presses when we are
preparing a story that includes leaked classified material, and tell it to
stop us".

What WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western
democratic system has been hollowed out. In the last decade its political
elites have been shown to be incompetent (Ireland, the US and UK in not
regulating banks); corrupt (all governments in relation to the arms trade);
or recklessly militaristic (the US and UK in Iraq). And yet nowhere have
they been called to account in any effective way. Instead they have
obfuscated, lied or blustered their way through. And when, finally, the veil
of secrecy is lifted, their reflex reaction is to kill the messenger.

As Simon
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/02/world-cup-british-journ
alism-wikileaks> Jenkins put it recently in the Guardian, "Disclosure is
messy and tests moral and legal boundaries. It is often irresponsible and
usually embarrassing. But it is all that is left when regulation does
nothing, politicians are cowed, lawyers fall silent and audit is polluted.
Accountability can only default to disclosure." What we are hearing from the
enraged officialdom of our democracies is mostly the petulant screaming of
emperors whose clothes have been shredded by the net.

Which brings us back to the larger significance of this controversy. The
political elites of western democracies have discovered that the internet
can be a thorn not just in the side of authoritarian regimes, but in their
sides too. It has been comical watching them and their agencies stomp about
the net like maddened, half-blind giants trying to whack a mole. It has been
deeply worrying to watch terrified internet companies - with the exception
of Twitter, so far - bending to their will.

But politicians now face an agonising dilemma. The old, mole-whacking
approach won't work. WikiLeaks does not depend only on web technology.
Thousands of copies of those secret cables - and probably of much else
besides - are out there, distributed by peer-to-peer technologies like
BitTorrent <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%28protocol%29> . Our
rulers have a choice to make: either they learn to live in a WikiLeakable
world, with all that implies in terms of their future behaviour; or they
shut down the internet. Over to them.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/e87e8aa3/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  8 21:48:36 2010
From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque)
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:18:36 -0430
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <C92686B1.14425%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C92686B1.14425%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4D004384.60903@paque.net>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101208/fc5da222/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  8 22:51:34 2010
From: glaser at nic.br (Hartmut Glaser)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 01:51:34 -0200
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D005246.8020801@nic.br>


agreed ...

========================
On 08/12/10 22:53, Izumi AIZU wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
>
> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>
> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
>
> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
> but in this
> special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
>
> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.
>
> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
>
> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
> needed and important for us.
>
> I hope you understand and support this.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
> ------------------
> DRAFT
>
> To Frederic Riehl
> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>
> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
> that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
> will be composed exclusively of member states.
> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
> the creation of the IGF itself:
>
> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
> proposals for action…
>
> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
> September 2010.
>
> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
> acceptable.
>
> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> international organizations and forums”.
>
> ------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/cde3a95a/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Wed Dec  8 23:26:01 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:26:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <C92686B1.14425%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <1C857AA3338044A09FBFDFE3EE2EC7BD@userPC>
	<C92686B1.14425%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikK3gGRY-RhcUmuutE1DgX0TbRJBAD8MV4zRNww@mail.gmail.com>

Sign fine, rgds, mctim

On 12/9/10, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> wrote:
> Yep lets just do it
>
>
>
> From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 18:11:02 -0800
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, 'Deirdre Williams'
> <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>, 'Marilia Maciel' <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
> composition only by governments
>
> I'm okay with signing onto this immediately.
>
> Mike
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:  governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
>> [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org]  On Behalf Of Deirdre Williams
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 08,  2010 5:39 PM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Marilia  Maciel
>> Subject: Re: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter  protesting CSTD WG
>> composition only by governments
>>
>> I agree  too
>> Deirdre
>>
>>
>> On 8 December 2010 21:36, Marilia Maciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> I agree that we sign it as well.
>>>
>>> That does not  hamper us from sending a statement on behalf of IGC with
>>> any
>>> additional  point we believe it would be important to make.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree, and I support signing it too because the time  constraint and
>>>> the
>>>> need to act quickly
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/12/9 Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ixumi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Well done, I support IGC signing on  immediately.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since this is not a letter from IGC alone but from a  coalition and
>>>>> since
>>>>> the letter reads well for cs (at least to me), one  expedient manouver
>>>>> is
>>>>> for our co-coordinators to sign on like - right  now - while you wait
>>>>> say
>>>>> 12hrs for any objections to surface on the  list.
>>>>>
>>>>> If none do, then just remove your names, leave 'IGC' and  we're done.
>>>>>
>>>>> My 2 centavos on how to play  this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lee
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: There's a chance I can join David, Milton  and maybe Avri in NYC on
>>>>> 14th as I have another event to attend that  evening there. If I do I
>>>>> can
>>>>> help make some - semi-polite - noise over  this if still necessary,
>>>>> then.
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From: izumiaizu at gmail.com  [izumiaizu at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Izumi
>>>>> AIZU
>>>>> [iza at anr.org]
>>>>> Sent:  Wednesday, December 08, 2010 7:53 PM
>>>>> To: Governance List
>>>>> Subject:  [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
>>>>> composition only by governments
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear list,
>>>>>
>>>>> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD  WG only by governments
>>>>> is now proven to be true, decided by very few  members of CSTD.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the  joint letter work we had
>>>>> on
>>>>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced  cooperation. They shared the same
>>>>> concern and worked out with many  others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
>>>>> meeting including ICANN, government  folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
>>>>> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is the  draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and
>>>>> asking
>>>>> IGC
>>>>> to  join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost  final.
>>>>>
>>>>> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or  suggestions,
>>>>> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need  48 hours to decide,
>>>>> but in this
>>>>> special case, we may not have that  luxury of time.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the  complication), and now
>>>>> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD  WG. My suggestion is
>>>>> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in  addition to the joint
>>>>> one.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will post that draft in a separate  email and welcome your comments.
>>>>> We will send that and perhaps make  statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
>>>>> if they do not change their decision.  We will also include that and
>>>>> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation  meeting in New York.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this  could happen, and I think
>>>>> acting quickly to keep the  Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
>>>>> needed and important for  us.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope you understand and support  this.
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>>
>>>>> izumi
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> DRAFT
>>>>>
>>>>> To  Frederic Riehl
>>>>> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>>>>>
>>>>> We are surprised and  deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau¹s decision
>>>>> that  the Working  Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
>>>>> (2010/2) of the  United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
>>>>> will be composed  exclusively of member states.
>>>>> This ECOSOC resolution, which was  initially negotiated during the CSTD
>>>>> in May 2010 by or in the  presence of many of the signatories below,
>>>>> asked the Chair of the  CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
>>>>> compile and review  inputs from all Member States and all other
>>>>> stakeholders on  improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
>>>>> in line with the  mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
>>>>> These words are a clear  reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
>>>>> Action (Geneva 2003)  that led to the establishment of the very
>>>>> successful Working Group on  Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
>>>>> the creation of the IGF  itself:
>>>>>
>>>>> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set  up a working
>>>>> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive  process that
>>>>> ensures a mechanism for the full and active  participation of
>>>>> governments, the private sector and civil society  from both developing
>>>>> and developed countries, involving relevant  intergovernmental and
>>>>> international organizations and forums, to  investigate and make
>>>>> proposals for actionŠ
>>>>>
>>>>> We therefore  expected that the composition of the Working Group would
>>>>> be strongly  inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up  the
>>>>> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD  Vice-Chair¹s
>>>>> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened  on 16
>>>>> September 2010.
>>>>>
>>>>> The format decided by the Bureau of the  CSTD is contrary to both the
>>>>> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC  resolution and is therefore not
>>>>> acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any event, it  is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
>>>>> decision on this  matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
>>>>> rather a Working  Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
>>>>> instructed by the  ECOSOC resolution.
>>>>> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of  implementing the
>>>>> request made to her. In light of that and the above  information we
>>>>> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to  establish an
>>>>> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with  the WSIS
>>>>> formulation ensuring ³the full and active participation  of
>>>>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both  developing
>>>>> and developed countries, involving relevant  intergovernmental and
>>>>> international organizations and  forums².
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------
>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>> You  received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> To be removed from the  list, send any message to:
>>>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Centro de Tecnologia e  Sociedade
>>> FGV Direito Rio
>>>
>>> Center for Technology and  Society
>>> Getulio Vargas Foundation
>>> Rio de Janeiro -  Brazil
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You  received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> To  be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>>
>>> For  all list information and functions, see:
>>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>
>>> Translate  this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ³The 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
>
>

-- 
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 nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr  Thu Dec  9 02:02:31 2010
From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:02:31 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <610475.20856.qm@web25901.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Hello all, 
I support signing this letter.
Regards

 NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul
Burundi Youth Training Centre
www.bytc.bi
Tel : +257 79 981459




________________________________
De : Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org>
À : Governance List <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Envoyé le : Jeu 9 décembre 2010, 2h 53min 28s
Objet : [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition 
only by governments

Dear list,

The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.

I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
ICANN, ccNSO etc.

Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
but in this
special case, we may not have that luxury of time.

I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.

I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.

Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
needed and important for us.

I hope you understand and support this.

best,

izumi

------------------
DRAFT

To Frederic Riehl
Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD

We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
will be composed exclusively of member states.
This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
the creation of the IGF itself:

We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
proposals for action…

We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
September 2010.

The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
acceptable.

In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums”.

------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/d232014e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 02:52:40 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:22:40 +0530
Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the
 WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice
In-Reply-To: <F4D5DBF97F6646EDB4DC17BBB1F1E3EE@userPC>
References: <F4D5DBF97F6646EDB4DC17BBB1F1E3EE@userPC>
Message-ID: <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net>


The WikiLeak case in indeed a watershed IG event, in the manner the US 
gov has exercised extra-legal authority, using its political and 
economic might in a rather comprehensive manner,  to control global 
traffic flows on the Internet.

Will IGC want to issue a statement on this?

This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law, 
informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights, 
is urgently required. The same process would be the place for redress in 
case of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present case.

If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue, 
perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go beyond 
just making process related statements, which often attract the cynical 
judgment that these views/ statements are rather self serving with 
unclear connections to real substantive global IG issues.

Parminder

 
Michael Gurstein wrote:
>
>
>   Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice
>
> here it is: 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks 
>
>  ---------------------------------------------------- 
>
> 'Never waste a good crisis" used to be the catchphrase of the Obama 
> team in the runup to the presidential election. In that spirit, let us 
> see what we can learn from official reactions to the WikiLeaks 
> revelations <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-us-embassy-cables>.
>
> The most obvious lesson is that it represents the first really 
> sustained confrontation between the established order and the culture 
> of the internet. There have been skirmishes before, but this is the 
> real thing.
>
> And as the backlash unfolds – first with deniable attacks on internet 
> service providers hosting WikiLeaks 
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/01/wikileaks-website-cables-servers-amazon>, 
> later with companies like Amazon and eBay and PayPal 
> <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11917891> suddenly 
> "discovering" that their terms and conditions preclude them from 
> offering services to WikiLeaks, and then with the US government 
> attempting to intimidate Columbia students posting updates about 
> WikiLeaks on Facebook – the intolerance of the old order is emerging 
> from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured. The 
> response has been vicious, co-ordinated and potentially comprehensive, 
> and it contains hard lessons for everyone who cares about democracy 
> and about the future of the net.
>
> There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is now the so-called 
> liberal democracies that are clamouring to shut WikiLeaks down.
>
> Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have 
> changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary 
> Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in Washington 
> DC, which many people welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to 
> China for its alleged cyberattack on Google. "Information has never 
> been so free," declared Clinton. "Even in authoritarian countries, 
> information networks are helping people discover new facts and making 
> governments more accountable."
>
> She went on to relate how, during his visit to China in November 2009, 
> Barack Obama had "defended the right of people to freely access 
> information, and said that the more freely information flows the 
> stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information 
> helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new 
> ideas, and encourages creativity." Given what we now know, that 
> Clinton speech reads like a satirical masterpiece.
>
> One thing that might explain the official hysteria about the 
> revelations is the way they expose how political elites in western 
> democracies have been deceiving their electorates.
>
> The leaks make it abundantly clear not just that the US-Anglo-European 
> adventure in Afghanistan is doomed but, more important, that the 
> American, British and other Nato governments privately admit that too.
>
> The problem is that they cannot face their electorates – who also 
> happen to be the taxpayers funding this folly – and tell them this. 
> The leaked dispatches from the US ambassador to Afghanistan provide 
> vivid confirmation that the Karzai regime is as corrupt and 
> incompetent as the South Vietnamese regime in Saigon was when the US 
> was propping it up in the 1970s. And they also make it clear that the 
> US is as much a captive of that regime as it was in Vietnam.
>
> The WikiLeaks revelations expose the extent to which the US and its 
> allies see no real prospect of turning Afghanistan into a viable 
> state, let alone a functioning democracy. They show that there is no 
> light at the end of this tunnel. But the political establishments in 
> Washington, London and Brussels cannot bring themselves to admit this.
>
> Afghanistan is, in that sense, a quagmire in the same way that Vietnam 
> was. The only differences are that the war is now being fought by 
> non-conscripted troops and we are not carpet-bombing civilians.
>
> The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who 
> has rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. 
> These are firms like Google, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace and Amazon 
> which host your blog or store your data on their servers somewhere on 
> the internet, or which enable you to rent "virtual" computers – again 
> located somewhere on the net. The terms and conditions under which 
> they provide both "free" and paid-for services will always give them 
> grounds for dropping your content if they deem it in their interests 
> to do so. The moral is that you should not put your faith in cloud 
> computing – one day it will rain on your parade.
>
> Look at the case of Amazon, which dropped WikiLeaks from its Elastic 
> Compute Cloud 
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Elastic_Compute_Cloud> the moment 
> the going got rough. It seems that Joe Lieberman, a US senator who 
> suffers from a terminal case of hubris, harassed the company over the 
> matter. Later Lieberman declared grandly that he would be "asking 
> Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it 
> and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that 
> their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified 
> information". This led the New Yorker's Amy Davidson to ask 
> <http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2010/12/banishing-wikileaks.html> 
> whether "Lieberman feels that he, or any senator, can call in the 
> company running the New Yorker's printing presses when we are 
> preparing a story that includes leaked classified material, and tell 
> it to stop us".
>
> What WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western 
> democratic system has been hollowed out. In the last decade its 
> political elites have been shown to be incompetent (Ireland, the US 
> and UK in not regulating banks); corrupt (all governments in relation 
> to the arms trade); or recklessly militaristic (the US and UK in 
> Iraq). And yet nowhere have they been called to account in any 
> effective way. Instead they have obfuscated, lied or blustered their 
> way through. And when, finally, the veil of secrecy is lifted, their 
> reflex reaction is to kill the messenger.
>
> As Simon Jenkins put it recently 
> <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/02/world-cup-british-journalism-wikileaks> 
> in the Guardian, "Disclosure is messy and tests moral and legal 
> boundaries. It is often irresponsible and usually embarrassing. But it 
> is all that is left when regulation does nothing, politicians are 
> cowed, lawyers fall silent and audit is polluted. Accountability can 
> only default to disclosure." What we are hearing from the enraged 
> officialdom of our democracies is mostly the petulant screaming of 
> emperors whose clothes have been shredded by the net.
>
> Which brings us back to the larger significance of this controversy. 
> The political elites of western democracies have discovered that the 
> internet can be a thorn not just in the side of authoritarian regimes, 
> but in their sides too. It has been comical watching them and their 
> agencies stomp about the net like maddened, half-blind giants trying 
> to whack a mole. It has been deeply worrying to watch terrified 
> internet companies – with the exception of Twitter, so far – bending 
> to their will.
>
> But politicians now face an agonising dilemma. The old, mole-whacking 
> approach won't work. WikiLeaks does not depend only on web technology. 
> Thousands of copies of those secret cables – and probably of much else 
> besides – are out there, distributed by peer-to-peer technologies like 
> BitTorrent <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitTorrent_%28protocol%29>. 
> Our rulers have a choice to make: either they learn to live in a 
> WikiLeakable world, with all that implies in terms of their future 
> behaviour; or they shut down the internet. Over to them.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/2b753267/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 01:53:53 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 17:53:53 +1100
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
In-Reply-To: <D8236834D72C4B03AC7929559403E692@userPC>
Message-ID: <C926C831.14449%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

I must say, nice to see ISOC standing up on this issue ­ they have not
always historically shown independence from the US Government and this is a
great step and an admirable one. Presumably this also means that
wikileaks.org .(org being run by PIR which is effectively owned by ISOC) ­
will also stand independent of USG pressure - unless there is a legal action
(rather than political pressure) which forces them to take action to
restrict access.

So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to
political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let
alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and
Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet.

I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful!

Ian Peter



From: Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Michael Gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2010 17:19:09 -0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC

Source:  http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2706

ISOC Monthly Newsletter
The Internet Society on the Wikileaks issue
Recently, we have witnessed the effective disappearance from the Internet of
a website made infamous through international press coverage and political
intrigue.

The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression and
non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and utility
of the Internet. We believe that this incident dramatically illustrates that
those principles are currently at risk.

Recognizing the content of the wikileaks.org <http://wikileaks.org>  website
is the subject of concern to a variety of individuals and nations, we
nevertheless believe it must be subject to the same laws and policies of
availability as all Internet sites.  Free expression should not be
restricted by governmental or private controls over computer hardware or
software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other essential components
of the Internet.

Resilience and cooperation are built into the Internet as a design
principle. The cooperation among several organizations has ensured that the
impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all access
to Wikileaks material.  This further underscores that the removal of a
domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely serving to
undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation.

Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the
wikileaks.org <http://wikileaks.org>  domain down legally, technical
solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence, and
appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that
acted maliciously to take it off the air.

(end)


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/2a5b6540/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 03:00:05 2010
From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
In-Reply-To: <C926C831.14449%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C926C831.14449%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org>

On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet.

and Twitter.

> I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful! 


Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"?  Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al.

-- 
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/e952e635/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/e952e635/attachment.bin>

From roland at internetpolicyagency.com  Thu Dec  9 03:40:44 2010
From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 08:40:44 +0000
Subject: [governance] IGF Improvement
In-Reply-To: <y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com>
References: <496277E5-C11D-482B-A5CB-F7FE7DF358CD@ciroap.org>
 <C91ECD16.14103%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <MhJYMj$3+L+MFA5f@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF8C38E.8030507@itforchange.net>
 <i+ij7dQavP+MFAc1@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <4CF9CFC6.6080508@itforchange.net>
 <M7P4qCItG8+MFAIO@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006EE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <S$p$LLByKK$MFAiU@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F02@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
 <AANLkTi=m39COcAFW2fGBf=AE27QQYS8f1FC1zXj6ocL7@mail.gmail.com>
 <KYpJC37y9j$MFATp@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D70AC125B42E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>
 <3M$GnGBrsp$MFAVS@internetpolicyagency.com>
 <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A07549@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
 <AANLkTi=EDVtnsjLsW+pr88J5gZsw-6Zi75cY7iDaD_L5@mail.gmail.com>
 <151B4EB5-1D6A-4740-B632-C7DF50F9FB75@ciroap.org>
 <p06240817c924c68e2dd5@[186.113.248.242]>
 <y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma@internetpolicyagency.com>
Message-ID: <9eZkD$KMYJANFAoS@internetpolicyagency.com>

In message <y$j3rhDZA6$MFAma at internetpolicyagency.com>, at 15:11:21 on Wed, 8 Dec
2010, Roland Perry <roland at internetpolicyagency.com> writes

>Based on the email that Izumi quoted yesterday, about attendance at the CSTD
>session on the 17th, it does appear to be the "classic" recent CSTD model of [in
>the room] Governments, ECOSOC consultative status entities and WSIS accredited
>entities.

"Information for Participants" now published reflects this. Meeting of 15-17th
December, where final day is the IGF Improvement WG.

http://www.unctad.org/sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2010d05_en.pdf
http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Download.asp?docid=14168&lang=1&intItemID=2068

-- 
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 jlfullsack at orange.fr  Thu Dec  9 03:51:03 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu,  9 Dec 2010 00:51:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4649935.36223.1291884628846.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d21>

I aggree and sign this letter
Many thanks Izumi for your prompt reactiion

Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT




> Message du 09/12/10 01:54
> De : "Izumi AIZU" 
> A : "Governance List" 
> Copie à : 
> Objet : [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments
> 
> Dear list,
> 
> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
> 
> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US,
> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
> 
> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
> 
> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
> please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
> but in this
> special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
> 
> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.
> 
> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
> 
> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
> needed and important for us.
> 
> I hope you understand and support this.
> 
> best,
> 
> izumi
> 
> ------------------
> DRAFT
> 
> To Frederic Riehl
> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
> 
> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
> that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
> will be composed exclusively of member states.
> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
> the creation of the IGF itself:
> 
> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
> proposals for action…
> 
> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
> September 2010.
> 
> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
> acceptable.
> 
> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> international organizations and forums”.
> 
> ------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/a2a33e13/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 03:56:29 2010
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 19:56:29 +1100
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
In-Reply-To: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <C926E4ED.14462%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>

>Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of
the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we
think that a set of principles should be >democratically developed to guide
public and private responses in future similar circumstances"?  Whilst I
personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within
the IGC's area of >core competence, and would also distinguish our statement
better from those of free speech groups et al.

Along the lines of the latter I think ­ we can say recent events such as
those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for....

While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also be
critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the absence of such
guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of  un co-ordinated
approaches taking place in the absence of established legal protocols.




From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC

On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

> So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to
> political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let
> alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and
> Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet.

and Twitter.

> I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful!

Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove
of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks,
and we think that a set of principles should be democratically developed to
guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"?  Whilst
I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more
within the IGC's area of core competence, and would also distinguish our
statement better from those of free speech groups et al.

-- 
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
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>

Read our email confidentiality notice
<http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&
int1stParentNodeID=89765> . Don't print this email unless necessary.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/7d9fbb74/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  9 04:23:39 2010
From: graciela at nupef.org.br (Graciela Selaimen)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:23:39 -0200
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <4649935.36223.1291884628846.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d21>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com> <4649935.36223.1291884628846.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d21>
Message-ID: <4D00A01B.6040400@nupef.org.br>

I also agree.
Thanks, Izumi.

Graciela Selaimen
Instituto Nupef

>     > Message du 09/12/10 01:54
>     > De : "Izumi AIZU"
>     > A : "Governance List"
>     > Copie à :
>     > Objet : [governance] Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
>     composition only by governments
>     >
>     > Dear list,
>     >
>     > The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
>     > is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
>     >
>     > I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work
>     we had on
>     > Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
>     > concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
>     > meeting including ICANN, government folks etc: UK, Sweden, US,
>     > ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>     >
>     > Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly,
>     and asking IGC
>     > to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost
>     final.
>     >
>     > I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
>     > please reply to this quickly. In general, we need 48 hours to
>     decide,
>     > but in this
>     > special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
>     >
>     > I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
>     > it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
>     > to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the
>     joint one.
>     >
>     > I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your
>     comments.
>     > We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
>     > if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
>     > read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
>     >
>     > Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
>     > acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
>     > needed and important for us.
>     >
>     > I hope you understand and support this.
>     >
>     > best,
>     >
>     > izumi
>     >
>     > ------------------
>     > DRAFT
>     >
>     > To Frederic Riehl
>     > Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>     >
>     > We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
>     > that the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
>     > (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
>     > will be composed exclusively of member states.
>     > This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during
>     the CSTD
>     > in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
>     > asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
>     > compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
>     > stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
>     > in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
>     > These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS
>     Plan of
>     > Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
>     > successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and
>     ultimately
>     > the creation of the IGF itself:
>     >
>     > We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a
>     working
>     > group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
>     > ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
>     > governments, the private sector and civil society from both
>     developing
>     > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>     > international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
>     > proposals for action…
>     >
>     > We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group
>     would
>     > be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
>     > multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
>     > recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
>     > September 2010.
>     >
>     > The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
>     > letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
>     > acceptable.
>     >
>     > In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
>     > decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the
>     CSTD, but
>     > rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
>     > instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
>     > The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
>     > request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
>     > urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
>     > appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
>     > formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
>     > governments, the private sector and civil society from both
>     developing
>     > and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>     > international organizations and forums”.
>     >
>     > ------------------
>     > ____________________________________________________________
>     > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     > governance at lists.cpsr.org
>     > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/b7bd4dc0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  9 04:36:08 2010
From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK)
Date: Thu,  9 Dec 2010 01:36:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the
 WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice
In-Reply-To: <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net>
References: <F4D5DBF97F6646EDB4DC17BBB1F1E3EE@userPC>
 <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <16805863.38411.1291887311553.JavaMail.www@wwinf1d21>

The paradigm shift in freedom of expression on the net, mentioned by the Guardian, justifies Parminder's concerns in IG. We have here an actual and very concrete case directly linked to Internet Govenrance which has its roots not only in the existent (US) laws, constituencies, processings dealing with Internet, but also in the global Internet network architecture. 
Therfore I'd kindly ask the IGC to issue the statement proposed by Parminder. 

Best
Jean-Louis Fullsack
CSDPTT  




> Message du 09/12/10 08:53
> De : "parminder" 
> A : "Michael Gurstein" 
> Copie à : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Research and Advocacy Team" 
> Objet : [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice
> 
> 
> The WikiLeak case in indeed a watershed IG event, in the manner the US gov has exercised extra-legal authority, using its political and economic might in a rather comprehensive manner,  to control global traffic flows on the Internet. 
> 
> Will IGC want to issue a statement on this?
> 
> This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law, informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights, is urgently required. The same process would be the place for redress in case of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present case.
> 
> If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue, perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go beyond just making process related statements, which often attract the cynical judgment that these views/ statements are rather self serving with unclear connections to real substantive global IG issues.
> 
> Parminder 
> 
>  
> Michael Gurstein wrote: Message Live with the WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice here it is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/dec/06/western-democracies-must-live-with-leaks 
> 
>  ----------------------------------------------------  > 'Never waste a good crisis" used to be the catchphrase of the Obama team in the runup to the presidential election. In that spirit, let us see what we can learn from official reactions to the WikiLeaks revelations.
> The most obvious lesson is that it represents the first really sustained confrontation between the established order and the culture of the internet. There have been skirmishes before, but this is the real thing.
> And as the backlash unfolds – first with deniable attacks on internet service providers hosting WikiLeaks, later with companies like Amazon and eBay and PayPal suddenly "discovering" that their terms and conditions preclude them from offering services to WikiLeaks, and then with the US government attempting to intimidate Columbia students posting updates about WikiLeaks on Facebook – the intolerance of the old order is emerging from the rosy mist in which it has hitherto been obscured. The response has been vicious, co-ordinated and potentially comprehensive, and it contains hard lessons for everyone who cares about democracy and about the future of the net.
> There is a delicious irony in the fact that it is now the so-called liberal democracies that are clamouring to shut WikiLeaks down.
> Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in Washington DC, which many people welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to China for its alleged cyberattack on Google. "Information has never been so free," declared Clinton. "Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable."
> She went on to relate how, during his visit to China in November 2009, Barack Obama had "defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity." Given what we now know, that Clinton speech reads like a satirical masterpiece.
> One thing that might explain the official hysteria about the revelations is the way they expose how political elites in western democracies have been deceiving their electorates.
> The leaks make it abundantly clear not just that the US-Anglo-European adventure in Afghanistan is doomed but, more important, that the American, British and other Nato governments privately admit that too.
> The problem is that they cannot face their electorates – who also happen to be the taxpayers funding this folly – and tell them this. The leaked dispatches from the US ambassador to Afghanistan provide vivid confirmation that the Karzai regime is as corrupt and incompetent as the South Vietnamese regime in Saigon was when the US was propping it up in the 1970s. And they also make it clear that the US is as much a captive of that regime as it was in Vietnam.
> The WikiLeaks revelations expose the extent to which the US and its allies see no real prospect of turning Afghanistan into a viable state, let alone a functioning democracy. They show that there is no light at the end of this tunnel. But the political establishments in Washington, London and Brussels cannot bring themselves to admit this.
> Afghanistan is, in that sense, a quagmire in the same way that Vietnam was. The only differences are that the war is now being fought by non-conscripted troops and we are not carpet-bombing civilians.
> The attack of WikiLeaks also ought to be a wake-up call for anyone who has rosy fantasies about whose side cloud computing providers are on. These are firms like Google, Flickr, Facebook, Myspace and Amazon which host your blog or store your data on their servers somewhere on the internet, or which enable you to rent "virtual" computers – again located somewhere on the net. The terms and conditions under which they provide both "free" and paid-for services will always give them grounds for dropping your content if they deem it in their interests to do so. The moral is that you should not put your faith in cloud computing – one day it will rain on your parade.
> Look at the case of Amazon, which dropped WikiLeaks from its Elastic Compute Cloud the moment the going got rough. It seems that Joe Lieberman, a US senator who suffers from a terminal case of hubris, harassed the company over the matter. Later Lieberman declared grandly that he would be "asking Amazon about the extent of its relationship with WikiLeaks and what it and other web service providers will do in the future to ensure that their services are not used to distribute stolen, classified information". This led the New Yorker's Amy Davidson to ask whether "Lieberman feels that he, or any senator, can call in the company running the New Yorker's printing presses when we are preparing a story that includes leaked classified material, and tell it to stop us".
> What WikiLeaks is really exposing is the extent to which the western democratic system has been hollowed out. In the last decade its political elites have been shown to be incompetent (Ireland, the US and UK in not regulating banks); corrupt (all governments in relation to the arms trade); or recklessly militaristic (the US and UK in Iraq). And yet nowhere have they been called to account in any effective way. Instead they have obfuscated, lied or blustered their way through. And when, finally, the veil of secrecy is lifted, their reflex reaction is to kill the messenger.
> As Simon Jenkins put it recently in the Guardian, "Disclosure is messy and tests moral and legal boundaries. It is often irresponsible and usually embarrassing. But it is all that is left when regulation does nothing, politicians are cowed, lawyers fall silent and audit is polluted. Accountability can only default to disclosure." What we are hearing from the enraged officialdom of our democracies is mostly the petulant screaming of emperors whose clothes have been shredded by the net.
> Which brings us back to the larger significance of this controversy. The political elites of western democracies have discovered that the internet can be a thorn not just in the side of authoritarian regimes, but in their sides too. It has been comical watching them and their agencies stomp about the net like maddened, half-blind giants trying to whack a mole. It has been deeply worrying to watch terrified internet companies – with the exception of Twitter, so far – bending to their will.
> But politicians now face an agonising dilemma. The old, mole-whacking approach won't work. WikiLeaks does not depend only on web technology. Thousands of copies of those secret cables – and probably of much else besides – are out there, distributed by peer-to-peer technologies like BitTorrent. Our rulers have a choice to make: either they learn to live in a WikiLeakable world, with all that implies in terms of their future behaviour; or they shut down the internet. Over to them.

>
> [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/37e87c65/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 04:46:46 2010
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin (well))
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:46:46 +0100
Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimBm3tizbd4tyV-Z=8oR-8GQerx2rBHh0f4xJ=q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBm3tizbd4tyV-Z=8oR-8GQerx2rBHh0f4xJ=q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikKT_JGLTOVEUaTwrg-PzovP4Wt+k3Zu=un57s+@mail.gmail.com>

I agree with this text.
- - -

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:

> Dear list,
> Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC,
> NOT the joint one which I sent earlier.
>
> As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG
> for both substance and the tone/style.
>
> I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end
> of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is
> a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and
> b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier
>
> Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final
> wording as much as possible.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
> ---------------------
>
> Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey
> Chairperson
> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>
> His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl,
> Vice Chairperson,
> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>
>
> Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl,
>
> Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process.
>
> We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will
> comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private
> Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no
> official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if
> the above mentioned is indeed true.
>
> In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned,
> would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is
> apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC
> resolution,  for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive
> manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be
> communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to
> identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present
> process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this
> important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the
> Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in
> letter and spirit.
>
> The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF
> consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working
> Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method.
>
> As the Chair’s Summary says:
> *It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character
> and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and
> should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of
> the CSTD Working Group on the IGF.
>
> Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was
> essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of
> representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the
> private sector.
>
> A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model
> of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in
> the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive
> manner”
> *
>
> In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not
> in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil
> society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from
> the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to
> the continued development and success of building the people-centered
> Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles
> including that "The international management of the Internet should be
> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
> organizations.”
>
> We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we
> do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some
> additional time.
>
> We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have
> acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible
> consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole
> ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a
> unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all
> stakeholders.
>
> We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that
> our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear
> that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to
> the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been
> built among  the stakeholders since WSIS.  A lack of meaningful
> multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant,
> and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this
> crucial time.
>
> We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest.
>
> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/939a5c2c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From dcogburn at syr.edu  Thu Dec  9 04:49:53 2010
From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 04:49:53 -0500
Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikKT_JGLTOVEUaTwrg-PzovP4Wt+k3Zu=un57s+@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBm3tizbd4tyV-Z=8oR-8GQerx2rBHh0f4xJ=q@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikKT_JGLTOVEUaTwrg-PzovP4Wt+k3Zu=un57s+@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D38DE12D-94CB-4BE4-8424-7A909C1ED016@syr.edu>

I agree with the text.

DLC


Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn
Associate Professor of International Relations
International Communication Program
School of International Service
American University

Director: Center for Research on Collaboratories and
Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco)
http://cotelco.net

Sent from my iPad

On Dec 9, 2010, at 4:47 AM, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com<mailto:pouzin at well.com>> wrote:

I agree with this text.
- - -

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Izumi AIZU <<mailto:iza at anr.org>iza at anr.org<mailto:iza at anr.org>> wrote:
Dear list,
Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC,
NOT the joint one which I sent earlier.

As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG
for both substance and the tone/style.

I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end
of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is
a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and
b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier

Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final
wording as much as possible.

best,

izumi

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

Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey
Chairperson
UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development

His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl,
Vice Chairperson,
UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development


Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl,

Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process.

We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if the above mentioned is indeed true.

In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned, would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC resolution,  for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in letter and spirit.

The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method.

As the Chair’s Summary says:
It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of the CSTD Working Group on the IGF.

Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the private sector.

A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive manner”

In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to the continued development and success of building the people-centered Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles including that "The international management of the Internet should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations.”

We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some additional time.

We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all stakeholders.

We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been built among  the stakeholders since WSIS.  A lack of meaningful multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant, and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this crucial time.

We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest.

Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus


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

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

Translate this email: <http://translate.google.com/translate_t> http://translate.google.com/translate_t

<message-footer.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/57ac788f/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

From peter at peter-dambier.de  Thu Dec  9 04:51:19 2010
From: peter at peter-dambier.de (Peter Dambier)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 10:51:19 +0100
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
In-Reply-To: <D8236834D72C4B03AC7929559403E692@userPC>
References: <D8236834D72C4B03AC7929559403E692@userPC>
Message-ID: <4D00A697.4060202@peter-dambier.de>

Sorry for the noise and for being absent so long.

The fracture in DNS has happened and is getting deeper.
Alternative roots do resolve the original "wikileaks.org".

In case you need it or want to tell somebody how to include it
in their local DNS, here is an example:

wikileaks.org.          1800    IN      AAAA    2a00:12d8:100:99::202
wikileaks.org.          1800    IN      A       46.59.1.2
wikileaks.org.          1800    IN      A       88.80.6.179
wikileaks.org.          1800    IN      A       178.21.20.8
wikileaks.org.          1800    IN      A       212.117.162.17
wikileaks.org.          1800    IN      A       213.251.145.96
wikileaks.org.          1800    IN      A       46.21.239.250
wikileaks.org.          1800    IN      NS      l-root.cesidio.net.
...

and sometimes DNS is running on port 3001 not 53.


I think this information is interesting for analyzing the
impact of wikileaks or blocking wikileaks (more than 1000 mirrors).


Thank you
Peter Dambier


Michael Gurstein wrote:
> Source:  http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2706
> 
> ISOC Monthly Newsletter
> 
> 
>       The Internet Society on the Wikileaks issue
> 
> Recently, we have witnessed the effective disappearance from the
> Internet of a website made infamous through international press coverage
> and political intrigue.
> 
> The Internet Society is founded upon key principles of free expression
> and non discrimination that are essential to preserve the openness and
> utility of the Internet. We believe that this incident dramatically
> illustrates that those principles are currently at risk.
> 
> Recognizing the content of the wikileaks.org <http://wikileaks.org>
> website is the subject of concern to a variety of individuals and
> nations, we nevertheless believe it must be subject to the same laws and
> policies of availability as all Internet sites.  Free expression should
> not be restricted by governmental or private controls over computer
> hardware or software, telecommunications infrastructure, or other
> essential components of the Internet.
> 
> Resilience and cooperation are built into the Internet as a design
> principle. The cooperation among several organizations has ensured that
> the impact on the Wikileaks organizational website has not prevented all
> access to Wikileaks material.  This further underscores that the removal
> of a domain is an ineffective tool to suppress communication, merely
> serving to undermine the integrity of the global Internet and its operation.
> 
> Unless and until appropriate laws are brought to bear to take the
> wikileaks.org <http://wikileaks.org> domain down legally, technical
> solutions should be sought to reestablish its proper presence, and
> appropriate actions taken to pursue and prosecute entities (if any) that
> acted maliciously to take it off the air.
> 
> (end)
> 


-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Cesidian Root - Radice Cesidiana
Rimbacher Strasse 16
D-69509 Moerlenbach-Bonsweiher
+49(6209)795-816 (Telekom)
+49(6252)750-308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
mail: peter at peter-dambier.de
http://www.peter-dambier.de/
http://iason.site.voila.fr/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/iason/
ULA= fd80:4ce1:c66a::/48
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t


From parminder at itforchange.net  Thu Dec  9 06:11:15 2010
From: parminder at itforchange.net (parminder)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:41:15 +0530
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
In-Reply-To: <C926E4ED.14462%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <C926E4ED.14462%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <4D00B953.2010109@itforchange.net>



Ian Peter wrote:
> >Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we 
> disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing 
> with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be 
> >democratically developed to guide public and private responses in 
> future similar circumstances"?  Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, 
> I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of 
> >core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from 
> those of free speech groups et al.
>
> Along the lines of the latter I think – we can say recent events such 
> as those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for....
>
> While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also 
> be critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the 
> absence of such guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of  un 
> co-ordinated approaches taking place in the absence of established 
> legal protocols.
>
I agree. parminder
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> *Date: *Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800
> *To: *<governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
>
> On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
>     So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave
>     in to political pressure, although there is no legal action
>     against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand,
>     ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have
>     stood firmly on the side of a free Internet.
>
>
> and Twitter.
>
>     I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful!
>
>
> Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we 
> disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing 
> with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be 
> democratically developed to guide public and private responses in 
> future similar circumstances"?  Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, 
> I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core 
> competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those 
> of free speech groups et al.
>
> -- 
> *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__ 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>
> _
> Read our email confidentiality notice 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765 
> <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>> 
> . Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/65237a30/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 07:06:29 2010
From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 13:06:29 +0100
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu>

Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I 
support that the IGC signs it.

jeanette

Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU:
> Dear list,
>
> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
>
> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>
> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
>
> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
> but in this
> special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
>
> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.
>
> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
>
> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
> needed and important for us.
>
> I hope you understand and support this.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
> ------------------
> DRAFT
>
> To Frederic Riehl
> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>
> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
> that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
> will be composed exclusively of member states.
> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
> the creation of the IGF itself:
>
> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
> proposals for action…
>
> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
> September 2010.
>
> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
> acceptable.
>
> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> international organizations and forums”.
>
> ------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 valeriab at apc.org  Thu Dec  9 07:22:19 2010
From: valeriab at apc.org (Valeria Betancourt)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:22:19 -0500
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin8RxPev9-piVgRk3b=1DLgjFcbr2k+fc-ZbOSK@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi,

APC supports that IGC signs the letter.

Best,

Valeria

2010/12/9 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

> Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I
> support that the IGC signs it.
>
> jeanette
>
> Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU:
>
>  Dear list,
>>
>> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
>> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
>>
>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
>> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
>> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
>> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>>
>> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking
>> IGC
>> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
>>
>> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
>> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
>> but in this
>> special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
>>
>> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
>> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
>> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.
>>
>> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
>> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
>> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
>> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
>>
>> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
>> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
>> needed and important for us.
>>
>> I hope you understand and support this.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ------------------
>> DRAFT
>>
>> To Frederic Riehl
>> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>>
>> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
>> that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
>> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
>> will be composed exclusively of member states.
>> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
>> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
>> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
>> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
>> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
>> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
>> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
>> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
>> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
>> the creation of the IGF itself:
>>
>> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
>> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
>> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
>> proposals for action…
>>
>> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
>> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
>> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
>> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
>> September 2010.
>>
>> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
>> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
>> acceptable.
>>
>> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
>> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
>> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
>> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
>> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
>> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
>> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
>> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
>> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>> international organizations and forums”.
>>
>> ------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>



-- 
Valeria Betancourt
Directora / Manager
Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
Information
Policy Programme
Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
Progressive Communications, APC
http://www.apc.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/adf7f08e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 07:39:17 2010
From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:39:17 +0000
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD  WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <20101209124006.4B03E4C7E6@npogroups.org>

I support the letter and also support that IGC signs it.

Thanking you,
Hakikur

At 12:06 PM 12/9/2010, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The 
>letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it.
>
>jeanette
>
>Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU:
>>Dear list,
>>
>>The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
>>is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
>>
>>I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
>>Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
>>concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
>>meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
>>ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>>
>>Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to 
>>send it shortly, and asking IGC
>>to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
>>
>>I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
>>please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
>>but in this
>>special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
>>
>>I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
>>it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
>>to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.
>>
>>I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
>>We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
>>if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
>>read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
>>
>>Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
>>acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
>>needed and important for us.
>>
>>I hope you understand and support this.
>>
>>best,
>>
>>izumi
>>
>>------------------
>>DRAFT
>>
>>To Frederic Riehl
>>Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>>
>>We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
>>that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
>>(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
>>will be composed exclusively of member states.
>>This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
>>in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
>>asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
>>compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
>>stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
>>in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
>>These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
>>Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
>>successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
>>the creation of the IGF itself:
>>
>>We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
>>group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
>>ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
>>governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>>and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>>international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
>>proposals for action

>>
>>We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
>>be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
>>multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
>>recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
>>September 2010.
>>
>>The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
>>letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
>>acceptable.
>>
>>In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
>>decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
>>rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
>>instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
>>The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
>>request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
>>urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
>>appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
>>formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
>>governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>>and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>>international organizations and forums”.
>>
>>------------------
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>       governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>       governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 gate.one205 at yahoo.fr  Thu Dec  9 07:39:43 2010
From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:39:43 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8RxPev9-piVgRk3b=1DLgjFcbr2k+fc-ZbOSK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <996088.52273.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Dear Izumi and list,
 
I am supporting that IGC signs this letter,
 
regards,
 
Jean Yves G

--- En date de : Jeu 9.12.10, Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org> a écrit :


De: Valeria Betancourt <valeriab at apc.org>
Objet: Re: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments
À: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Date: Jeudi 9 décembre 2010, 13h22


Dear Izumi, 

APC supports that IGC signs the letter. 

Best, 

Valeria 


2010/12/9 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it.

jeanette

Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU:




Dear list,

The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.

I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
ICANN, ccNSO etc.

Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
but in this
special case, we may not have that luxury of time.

I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.

I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.

Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
needed and important for us.

I hope you understand and support this.

best,

izumi

------------------
DRAFT

To Frederic Riehl
Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD

We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
will be composed exclusively of member states.
This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
the creation of the IGF itself:

We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
proposals for action…

We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
September 2010.

The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
acceptable.

In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums”.

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



-- 
Valeria Betancourt
Directora / Manager
Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information 
Policy Programme
Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
Progressive Communications, APC
http://www.apc.org

-----La pièce jointe associée suit-----


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/75a782f7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  9 07:40:14 2010
From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 17:40:14 +0500
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin8RxPev9-piVgRk3b=1DLgjFcbr2k+fc-ZbOSK@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>	<4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu> <AANLkTin8RxPev9-piVgRk3b=1DLgjFcbr2k+fc-ZbOSK@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <037501cb979e$3bee21c0$b3ca6540$@net>

Total support Izumi.

 

Best wishes

Shahzad

 

 

From: valeriabet at gmail.com [mailto:valeriabet at gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Valeria Betancourt
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:22 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
composition only by governments

 

Dear Izumi, 

APC supports that IGC signs the letter. 

Best, 

Valeria 

2010/12/9 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu>

Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I
support that the IGC signs it.

jeanette

Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU:

 

Dear list,

The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.

I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
ICANN, ccNSO etc.

Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking
IGC
to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
but in this
special case, we may not have that luxury of time.

I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.

I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.

Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
needed and important for us.

I hope you understand and support this.

best,

izumi

------------------
DRAFT

To Frederic Riehl
Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD

We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
will be composed exclusively of member states.
This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
the creation of the IGF itself:

We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
proposals for action


We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
September 2010.

The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
acceptable.

In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums”.

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




-- 
Valeria Betancourt
Directora / Manager
Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and
Information 
Policy Programme
Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
Progressive Communications, APC
http://www.apc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/3ea78734/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 07:57:46 2010
From: LisaH at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 12:57:46 +0000
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <037501cb979e$3bee21c0$b3ca6540$@net>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu>
 <AANLkTin8RxPev9-piVgRk3b=1DLgjFcbr2k+fc-ZbOSK@mail.gmail.com>
 <037501cb979e$3bee21c0$b3ca6540$@net>
Message-ID: <16BC5877C4C91649AF7A89BF3BCA7AB82C758ADD33@SERVER01.globalpartners.local>

From me too.

Thanks!
Lisa

From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Shahzad Ahmad
Sent: 09 December 2010 12:40
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: RE: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments

Total support Izumi.

Best wishes
Shahzad


From: valeriabet at gmail.com [mailto:valeriabet at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Valeria Betancourt
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 5:22 PM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments

Dear Izumi,

APC supports that IGC signs the letter.

Best,

Valeria
2010/12/9 Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wzb.eu<mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu>>
Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it.

jeanette

Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU:

Dear list,

The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.

I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
ICANN, ccNSO etc.

Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
but in this
special case, we may not have that luxury of time.

I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.

I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.

Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
needed and important for us.

I hope you understand and support this.

best,

izumi

------------------
DRAFT

To Frederic Riehl
Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD

We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau's decision
that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
will be composed exclusively of member states.
This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
the creation of the IGF itself:

We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
proposals for action...

We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair's
recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
September 2010.

The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
acceptable.

In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
formulation ensuring "the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums".

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

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
   governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>

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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t



--
Valeria Betancourt
Directora / Manager
Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information
Policy Programme
Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for
Progressive Communications, APC
http://www.apc.org

______________________________________________________________________
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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/15dfe7a6/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 09:13:39 2010
From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:13:39 -0500
Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition
In-Reply-To: <D38DE12D-94CB-4BE4-8424-7A909C1ED016@syr.edu>
References: <AANLkTimBm3tizbd4tyV-Z=8oR-8GQerx2rBHh0f4xJ=q@mail.gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikKT_JGLTOVEUaTwrg-PzovP4Wt+k3Zu=un57s+@mail.gmail.com>
	<D38DE12D-94CB-4BE4-8424-7A909C1ED016@syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinT=-1Kv_6EYLRb0oMqYgr7f4YkzLA3pnPPn2T+@mail.gmail.com>

text is good in general.

Jacqueline A. Morris
Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and
Free. (after Chris Lehmann )



On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu> wrote:
> I agree with the text.
> DLC
>
>
> Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn
> Associate Professor of International Relations
> International Communication Program
> School of International Service
> American University
> Director: Center for Research on Collaboratories and
> Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco)
> http://cotelco.net
> Sent from my iPad
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 4:47 AM, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com> wrote:
>
> I agree with this text.
> - - -
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
>>
>> Dear list,
>> Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC,
>> NOT the joint one which I sent earlier.
>>
>> As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG
>> for both substance and the tone/style.
>>
>> I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end
>> of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is
>> a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and
>> b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier
>>
>> Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final
>> wording as much as possible.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> izumi
>>
>> ---------------------
>>
>> Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey
>> Chairperson
>> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>>
>> His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl,
>> Vice Chairperson,
>> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>>
>>
>> Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl,
>>
>> Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process.
>>
>> We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will
>> comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private
>> Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no
>> official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if
>> the above mentioned is indeed true.
>>
>> In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned,
>> would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is
>> apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC
>> resolution,  for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive
>> manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be
>> communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to
>> identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present
>> process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this
>> important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the
>> Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in
>> letter and spirit.
>>
>> The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF
>> consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working
>> Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method.
>>
>> As the Chair’s Summary says:
>> It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character
>> and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and
>> should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of
>> the CSTD Working Group on the IGF.
>>
>> Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was
>> essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of
>> representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the
>> private sector.
>>
>> A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the
>> model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set
>> up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and
>> inclusive manner”
>>
>> In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not
>> in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil
>> society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from
>> the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to
>> the continued development and success of building the people-centered
>> Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles
>> including that "The international management of the Internet should be
>> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
>> organizations.”
>>
>> We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but
>> we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some
>> additional time.
>>
>> We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have
>> acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible
>> consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole
>> ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a
>> unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all
>> stakeholders.
>>
>> We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and
>> that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we
>> fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather,
>> to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has
>> been built among  the stakeholders since WSIS.  A lack of meaningful
>> multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant,
>> and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this
>> crucial time.
>>
>> We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest.
>>
>> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>>
>> For all list information and functions, see:
>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
> <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 lmcknigh at syr.edu  Thu Dec  9 09:17:07 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:17:07 -0500
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
In-Reply-To: <C926E4ED.14462%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
References: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org>,<C926E4ED.14462%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Milton wrote a nice piece for the IGP blog on the Wikileaks issue....check out the newslettter we sent around yesterday. The Wikileaks thing from an IGC perspective is not about 'supporting' WikiLeaks,  but about supporting open, transparent, governance of...critical Internet resources or however we phrase it for a broader audience to significantly raise the profile of IGC.

So yeah I agree timing is good to play off Wikileaks to highlight our broader concerns, highlighted by Wikileaks and the CSTD shenanigans.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:56 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC

>Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"?  Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of >core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al.

Along the lines of the latter I think – we can say recent events such as those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for....

While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also be critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the absence of such guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of  un co-ordinated approaches taking place in the absence of established legal protocols.



________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC

On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet.

and Twitter.

I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful!

Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"?  Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al.

--
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 <http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>

Read our email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765> . Don't print this email unless necessary.


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

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  Thu Dec  9 09:18:04 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:18:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinT=-1Kv_6EYLRb0oMqYgr7f4YkzLA3pnPPn2T+@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBm3tizbd4tyV-Z=8oR-8GQerx2rBHh0f4xJ=q@mail.gmail.com>
 <AANLkTikKT_JGLTOVEUaTwrg-PzovP4Wt+k3Zu=un57s+@mail.gmail.com>
 <D38DE12D-94CB-4BE4-8424-7A909C1ED016@syr.edu> <AANLkTinT=-1Kv_6EYLRb0oMqYgr7f4YkzLA3pnPPn2T+@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTinfYj9Wcgy+aTCA940896poPECaOAR2XrqfN1OM@mail.gmail.com>

I agree
Deirdre

On 9 December 2010 10:13, Jacqueline Morris <jam at jacquelinemorris.com>wrote:

> text is good in general.
>
> Jacqueline A. Morris
> Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible and
> Free. (after Chris Lehmann )
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 4:49 AM, Derrick L. Cogburn <dcogburn at syr.edu>
> wrote:
> > I agree with the text.
> > DLC
> >
> >
> > Dr. Derrick L. Cogburn
> > Associate Professor of International Relations
> > International Communication Program
> > School of International Service
> > American University
> > Director: Center for Research on Collaboratories and
> > Technology Enhanced Learning Communities (Cotelco)
> > http://cotelco.net
> > Sent from my iPad
> > On Dec 9, 2010, at 4:47 AM, "Louis Pouzin (well)" <pouzin at well.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with this text.
> > - - -
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear list,
> >> Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC,
> >> NOT the joint one which I sent earlier.
> >>
> >> As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG
> >> for both substance and the tone/style.
> >>
> >> I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end
> >> of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is
> >> a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and
> >> b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier
> >>
> >> Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final
> >> wording as much as possible.
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> izumi
> >>
> >> ---------------------
> >>
> >> Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey
> >> Chairperson
> >> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
> >>
> >> His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl,
> >> Vice Chairperson,
> >> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl,
> >>
> >> Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process.
> >>
> >> We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF
> will
> >> comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society,
> Private
> >> Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is
> no
> >> official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation
> if
> >> the above mentioned is indeed true.
> >>
> >> In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the
> undersigned,
> >> would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is
> >> apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC
> >> resolution,  for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive
> >> manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be
> >> communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to
> >> identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the
> present
> >> process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this
> >> important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of
> the
> >> Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in
> >> letter and spirit.
> >>
> >> The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF
> >> consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the
> Working
> >> Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work
> method.
> >>
> >> As the Chair’s Summary says:
> >> It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder
> character
> >> and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and
> >> should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods
> of
> >> the CSTD Working Group on the IGF.
> >>
> >> Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was
> >> essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of
> >> representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and
> the
> >> private sector.
> >>
> >> A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the
> >> model of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was
> set
> >> up in the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and
> >> inclusive manner”
> >>
> >> In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is
> not
> >> in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil
> >> society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded
> from
> >> the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical
> to
> >> the continued development and success of building the people-centered
> >> Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles
> >> including that "The international management of the Internet should be
> >> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
> >> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
> >> organizations.”
> >>
> >> We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but
> >> we do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require
> some
> >> additional time.
> >>
> >> We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we
> have
> >> acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible
> >> consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole
> >> ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a
> >> unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to
> all
> >> stakeholders.
> >>
> >> We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and
> >> that our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not
> mistaken, we
> >> fear that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but
> rather,
> >> to the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has
> >> been built among  the stakeholders since WSIS.  A lack of meaningful
> >> multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and
> irrelevant,
> >> and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at
> this
> >> crucial time.
> >>
> >> We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest.
> >>
> >> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
> >>
> >>
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> >>
> >> For all list information and functions, see:
> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> >>
> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
> >
> > <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
>



-- 
“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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/7395ce3e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 09:18:44 2010
From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 19:18:44 +0500
Subject: [governance] Draft IGC letter pf protest on CSTD WG composition
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimBm3tizbd4tyV-Z=8oR-8GQerx2rBHh0f4xJ=q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTimBm3tizbd4tyV-Z=8oR-8GQerx2rBHh0f4xJ=q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ovhsjorbuEWV=Bds6z5qndxwr=6p7gOihuGO3@mail.gmail.com>

The statement is fully supported by myself but it would still be wise
to request Parminder for more thoughts and Miguel to help us with the
language of the statement!


Best

Fouad

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:15 AM, Izumi AIZU <iza at anr.org> wrote:
> Dear list,
> Here is the draft letter of protest on CSTD WG composition by IGC,
> NOT the joint one which I sent earlier.
>
> As I wrote earlier, it's been edited by the nominees for CSTD WG
> for both substance and the tone/style.
>
> I like to call for the consensus, will wait till the end
> of Friday, Dec 10 working hours in Europe unless there is
> a) good amount of support expressed earlier than that, and
> b) urgent need (either positive or negative) arises earlier
>
> Comments are all welcome, which will be taken into final
> wording as much as possible.
>
> best,
>
> izumi
>
> ---------------------
>
> Honourable Mme. Sherry Ayittey
> Chairperson
> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>
> His Exellency Mr. Frederic Riehl,
> Vice Chairperson,
> UN Commission on Science and Technology for Development
>
>
> Dear Ms. Ayittey and Mr. Riehl,
>
> Thank you for undertaking the IGF review process.
>
> We have learned that the membership of the CSTD Working Group on IGF will
> comprise Government representatives only and that no Civil Society, Private
> Sector, or Technical Community members will be included. Since there is no
> official announcement on this issue, we first of all seek a confirmation if
> the above mentioned is indeed true.
>
> In the unfortunate case that it has been so decided, we, the undersigned,
> would like to express our strong concern about that decision which is
> apparently in violation of the mandate given by the concerned ECOSOC
> resolution,  for setting up the Working Group in an ‘open and inclusive
> manner’. We understand that the same mandate is imminent to also be
> communicated through a UN General Assembly resolution. We are unable to
> identify “openness and inclusion” as underlying principles of the present
> process of setting up the Working Group. The overall approach to this
> important issue related to Internet Governance is also in violation of the
> Tunis Agenda, paras 37, 72, 73, 76, 78, 80, 83, 97,105, and 108, both in
> letter and spirit.
>
> The process also clearly goes against the Chair’s Summary of Vilnius IGF
> consultation and the Chair’s tentative road map indicates that the Working
> Group will employ multi-stakeholder composition, modality and work method.
>
> As the Chair’s Summary says:
> It was stressed by many participants that the multi-stakeholder character
> and inclusive spirit and principles of the IGF have been successful and
> should continue to guide the composition, modalities and working methods of
> the CSTD Working Group on the IGF.
>
> Thus, it was emphasised by a large number of interventions that it was
> essential that the working Group be composed of a balanced number of
> representatives from all stakeholders - governments, civil society and the
> private sector.
>
> A majority of stakeholders welcomed the Chair’s suggestion to use the model
> of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), which was set up in
> the aftermath of the 2003 Geneva phase of WSIS “in an open and inclusive
> manner”
>
> In this context, we are very much concerned that the WG composition is not
> in fact open and inclusive and that non-governmental stakeholders (civil
> society, business and Internet technical community) will be excluded from
> the WG membership altogether. Non-governmental stakeholders are critical to
> the continued development and success of building the people-centered
> Information Society. Their exclusion runs counter to WSIS principles
> including that "The international management of the Internet should be
> multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of
> governments, the private sector, civil society and international
> organizations.”
>
> We do not understand why this regressive decision was suddenly made, but we
> do request that this decision be reversed, even if that will require some
> additional time.
>
> We respectfully call for all government members with whom to date we have
> acted as partners in pursuit of IGF improvement, to examine the possible
> consequences of this perhaps hastily-considered proposal to the whole
> ecology and future of Internet Governance which has been evolving in a
> unique multistakeholder manner, and pursue an approach satisfactory to all
> stakeholders.
>
> We hope that we may have misunderstood the effect of this decision and that
> our reaction is therefore misplaced. However if we are not mistaken, we fear
> that the CSTD’s decision will lead not to the improvement, but rather, to
> the regression and even destruction of the IGF and the trust that has been
> built among  the stakeholders since WSIS.  A lack of meaningful
> multistakeholder involvement will make IGF both ineffective and irrelevant,
> and thwart attempts to further develop effective internet governance at this
> crucial time.
>
> We look forward to receiving your response at the earliest.
>
> Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> 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 ca at cafonso.ca  Thu Dec  9 09:25:30 2010
From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso)
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:25:30 -0200
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <FD97AFA1-447C-4031-A84F-266902BBFED2@ciroap.org>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com> <FD97AFA1-447C-4031-A84F-266902BBFED2@ciroap.org>
Message-ID: <4D00E6DA.3040107@cafonso.ca>

I agree as well.

--c.a.

On 12/09/2010 12:11 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
> On 09/12/2010, at 8:53 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
>> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
>> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
>> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>>
>> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
>> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
>
> This all happened while I was asleep, but I agree we should sign and send immediately, and I think it supersedes our earlier draft as IGC that the coordinators and CSTD nominees had been working on.
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 09:32:16 2010
From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:32:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
References: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org>
 <C926E4ED.14462%ian.peter@ianpeter.com> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <AANLkTiktbE94e7kcQBH8yVb3eA1ctKxeWEKV5bk6=LdT@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558>In light of this
discussion did anyone notice this report?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558
 <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558>I thought it was
particularly interesting in our world of smoke and mirrors and dust in the
air how effectively sleight of hand had directed all attention away from the
fact that somewhere at the base of the issue the US attempts to keep
information secret had failed. The US leaked before Wikileaks leaked.
Deirdre

On 9 December 2010 10:17, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu> wrote:

> Milton wrote a nice piece for the IGP blog on the Wikileaks issue....check
> out the newslettter we sent around yesterday. The Wikileaks thing from an
> IGC perspective is not about 'supporting' WikiLeaks,  but about supporting
> open, transparent, governance of...critical Internet resources or however we
> phrase it for a broader audience to significantly raise the profile of IGC.
>
> So yeah I agree timing is good to play off Wikileaks to highlight our
> broader concerns, highlighted by Wikileaks and the CSTD shenanigans.
>
> Lee
> ________________________________________
> From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org]
> On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:56 AM
> To: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
>
> >Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we
> disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with
> Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >democratically
> developed to guide public and private responses in future similar
> circumstances"?  Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the
> latter approach is more within the IGC's area of >core competence, and would
> also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et
> al.
>
> Along the lines of the latter I think – we can say recent events such as
> those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for....
>
> While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also be
> critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the absence of such
> guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of  un co-ordinated
> approaches taking place in the absence of established legal protocols.
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800
> To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
>
> On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote:
>
> So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to
> political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let
> alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and
> Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet.
>
> and Twitter.
>
> I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful!
>
> Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we
> disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with
> Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically
> developed to guide public and private responses in future similar
> circumstances"?  Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the
> latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would
> also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et
> al.
>
> --
> 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 <
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>
>
> Read our email confidentiality notice <
> http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765>
> . Don't print this email unless necessary.
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>     governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/01f7902c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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  Thu Dec  9 09:35:35 2010
From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:35:35 -0500
Subject: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiktbE94e7kcQBH8yVb3eA1ctKxeWEKV5bk6=LdT@mail.gmail.com>
References: <53F39239-8B52-4C0A-A0FD-00A990401535@ciroap.org>
 <C926E4ED.14462%ian.peter@ianpeter.com>
 <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,<AANLkTiktbE94e7kcQBH8yVb3eA1ctKxeWEKV5bk6=LdT@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE0330006F2C@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>

Yes the original 'problem' from a USG viewpoint is US State Dept's archaic practices for handling of sensitive information, which Private Manning apparently was helpfully (? ; ) trying to bring to USG's attention, as I understand his alleged supposed motivations.

That aspect could be included somehow in the IGC statement, but getting into specifics there is hard since it is just allegations and rumors at this point. And not really our main point.
________________________________________
From: Deirdre Williams [williams.deirdre at gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 9:32 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight
Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558>In light of this discussion did anyone notice this report? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558>I thought it was particularly interesting in our world of smoke and mirrors and dust in the air how effectively sleight of hand had directed all attention away from the fact that somewhere at the base of the issue the US attempts to keep information secret had failed. The US leaked before Wikileaks leaked.
Deirdre

On 9 December 2010 10:17, Lee W McKnight <lmcknigh at syr.edu<mailto:lmcknigh at syr.edu>> wrote:
Milton wrote a nice piece for the IGP blog on the Wikileaks issue....check out the newslettter we sent around yesterday. The Wikileaks thing from an IGC perspective is not about 'supporting' WikiLeaks,  but about supporting open, transparent, governance of...critical Internet resources or however we phrase it for a broader audience to significantly raise the profile of IGC.

So yeah I agree timing is good to play off Wikileaks to highlight our broader concerns, highlighted by Wikileaks and the CSTD shenanigans.

Lee
________________________________________
From: governance-request at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org> [governance-request at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance-request at lists.cpsr.org>] On Behalf Of Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 3:56 AM
To: Jeremy Malcolm; governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>
Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC

>Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be >democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"?  Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of >core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al.

Along the lines of the latter I think – we can say recent events such as those concerning Wikileaks highlight the need for....

While arguing for the development of specific processes, we can also be critical of the sorts of actions that have been taken in the absence of such guidelines and the futility and ineffectiveness of  un co-ordinated approaches taking place in the absence of established legal protocols.



________________________________
From: Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org<mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org>>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:00:05 +0800
To: <governance at lists.cpsr.org<mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>>, Ian Peter <ian.peter at ianpeter.com<mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com>>
Subject: Re: [governance] Wikileaks - ISOC

On 09/12/2010, at 2:53 PM, Ian Peter wrote:

So far we have seen everydns, mastercard, amazon and paypal cave in to political pressure, although there is no legal action against wikileaks, let alone a successful one. On the other hand, ISOC (and presumably PIR) and Facebook of all bedfellows have stood firmly on the side of a free Internet.

and Twitter.

I think an IGC statement on this issue would be useful!

Do we want to say "we support Wikileaks" or do we want to say "we disapprove of the (lack of) process that has been followed in dealing with Wikileaks, and we think that a set of principles should be democratically developed to guide public and private responses in future similar circumstances"?  Whilst I personally support Wikileaks, I think that the latter approach is more within the IGC's area of core competence, and would also distinguish our statement better from those of free speech groups et al.

--
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 <http://www.consumersinternational.org/50>

Read our email confidentiality notice <http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=100521&int1stParentNodeID=89765> . Don't print this email unless necessary.


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

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

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

From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch  Thu Dec  9 09:59:44 2010
From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (Drake William)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 09:59:44 -0500
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com> <4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu>
Message-ID: <72FB85C9-3B90-4CAF-BE11-9A7549945F01@graduateinstitute.ch>

Hi

Me too.

Bill


On Dec 9, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I support that the IGC signs it.
> 
> jeanette
> 
> Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU:
>> Dear list,
>> 
>> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
>> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
>> 
>> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
>> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
>> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
>> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
>> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
>> 
>> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
>> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
>> 
>> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
>> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
>> but in this
>> special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
>> 
>> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
>> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
>> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.
>> 
>> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
>> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
>> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
>> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
>> 
>> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
>> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
>> needed and important for us.
>> 
>> I hope you understand and support this.
>> 
>> best,
>> 
>> izumi
>> 
>> ------------------
>> DRAFT
>> 
>> To Frederic Riehl
>> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
>> 
>> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
>> that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
>> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
>> will be composed exclusively of member states.
>> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
>> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
>> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
>> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
>> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
>> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
>> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
>> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
>> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
>> the creation of the IGF itself:
>> 
>> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
>> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
>> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
>> proposals for action…
>> 
>> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
>> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
>> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
>> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
>> September 2010.
>> 
>> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
>> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
>> acceptable.
>> 
>> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
>> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
>> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
>> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
>> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
>> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
>> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
>> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
>> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
>> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
>> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
>> international organizations and forums”.
>> 
>> ------------------
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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

***********************************************************
William J. Drake
Senior Associate
Centre for International Governance
Graduate Institute of International and
 Development Studies
Geneva, Switzerland
william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
www.williamdrake.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 caffsouza at gmail.com  Thu Dec  9 10:19:12 2010
From: caffsouza at gmail.com (Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 13:19:12 -0200
Subject: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <72FB85C9-3B90-4CAF-BE11-9A7549945F01@graduateinstitute.ch>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D00C645.6000805@wzb.eu>
	<72FB85C9-3B90-4CAF-BE11-9A7549945F01@graduateinstitute.ch>
Message-ID: <AANLkTikB7ULE=B3Fgr_YJ21Xgi7T-_gAmfLkN1WozDXg@mail.gmail.com>

Same here. Thanks for the initiative.

Best,
Carlos Affonso


Vice-Coordenador
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS)
Escola de Direito da Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)
caf at fgv.br

2010/12/9 Drake William <william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch>

> Hi
>
> Me too.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Dec 9, 2010, at 7:06 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
> > Hi Izumi, thank you for coordinating this. The letter is very good and I
> support that the IGC signs it.
> >
> > jeanette
> >
> > Am 09.12.2010 01:53, schrieb Izumi AIZU:
> >> Dear list,
> >>
> >> The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
> >> is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.
> >>
> >> I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had
> on
> >> Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
> >> concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
> >> meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
> >> ICANN, ccNSO etc.
> >>
> >> Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and
> asking IGC
> >> to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.
> >>
> >> I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
> >> please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
> >> but in this
> >> special case, we may not have that luxury of time.
> >>
> >> I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
> >> it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
> >> to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint
> one.
> >>
> >> I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
> >> We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
> >> if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
> >> read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.
> >>
> >> Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
> >> acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
> >> needed and important for us.
> >>
> >> I hope you understand and support this.
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> izumi
> >>
> >> ------------------
> >> DRAFT
> >>
> >> To Frederic Riehl
> >> Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD
> >>
> >> We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau’s decision
> >> that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
> >> (2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
> >> will be composed exclusively of member states.
> >> This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
> >> in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
> >> asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
> >> compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
> >> stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
> >> in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
> >> These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
> >> Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
> >> successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
> >> the creation of the IGF itself:
> >>
> >> We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
> >> group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
> >> ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
> >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> >> international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
> >> proposals for action…
> >>
> >> We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
> >> be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
> >> multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair’s
> >> recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
> >> September 2010.
> >>
> >> The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
> >> letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
> >> acceptable.
> >>
> >> In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD to make a
> >> decision on this matter. This is not a Working Group of the CSTD, but
> >> rather a Working Group to be convened by the Chair of the CSTD as
> >> instructed by the ECOSOC resolution.
> >> The CSTD Chair entrusted you with the mission of implementing the
> >> request made to her. In light of that and the above information we
> >> urge you to retract the decision of 7 December, and to establish an
> >> appropriately constituted Working Group consistent with the WSIS
> >> formulation ensuring “the full and active participation of
> >> governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
> >> and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
> >> international organizations and forums”.
> >>
> >> ------------------
> >> ____________________________________________________________
> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
>  Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch
> www.williamdrake.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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20101209/4c09b8c1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

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 Dec  9 10:46:22 2010
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 18:46:22 +0300
Subject: [governance] Re: [ciresearchers] Guardian Online: Live with the
 WikiLeakable world or shut down the net. It's your choice
In-Reply-To: <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net>
References: <F4D5DBF97F6646EDB4DC17BBB1F1E3EE@userPC> <4D008AC8.5070406@itforchange.net>
Message-ID: <AANLkTini_uZ-R5z_uQPbE_rc0hKbPm5k_xA=49Uxg+1c@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 10:52 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> The WikiLeak case in indeed a watershed IG event,

agreed.

 in the manner the US gov
> has exercised extra-legal authority, using its political and economic might
> in a rather comprehensive manner,  to control global traffic flows on the
> Internet.

I would say "re-routed", not controlled.  You can still resolve
wikileaks.org.  What used to be one webserver is now nearly 1000.  So
what the USG has done ( inadvertently ) is actually enabled the spread
and distribution of the material.....Ironic innit?

Of course, the DDOS attacks that have made them switch to mirrors is
not done by the USG, but by script-kiddies.


>
> Will IGC want to issue a statement on this?


Who will we issue such a statement to?


>
> This goes to the heart of matter of why a due global process of law,
> informed by sound political frameworks, including those of human rights, is
> urgently required. The same process would be the place for redress in case
> of arbitrary controls, as exercised in the present case.

I just don't have the same faith that you seem to have that
governments will sign on to give up sovereignty on these issues.
We all saw the fights at WSIS, and that wasn't even binding!
Will the Pakistanis agree that they can't censor youtube? Will the
Chinese agree to dismantle the Great Firewall?  Will the USA stop
taking seizing domains due to alleged IP violations?  I think not on
all of the above.

>
> If this case does not prove the importance and urgency of this issue,
> perhaps nothing ever will. Also a good opportunity for IGC to go beyond just
> making process related statements, which often attract the cynical judgment


Cynical or realistic?

> that these views/ statements are rather self serving with unclear
> connections to real substantive global IG issues.
>

I've never said self-serving.

I think the headline is misleading, and follows the same logic those
in IGC use when they want to give too much power to governments.  Why
suggest to them that they can "shut down the net", we should know by
now that they cannot (well, except for North Korea).


-- 
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.benedek at uni-graz.at  Thu Dec  9 10:48:02 2010
From: wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at (Benedek, Wolfgang (wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at))
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 16:48:02 +0100
Subject: AW: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG
 composition only by governments
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTi=njg46JLN+L5HhD9i+wtjqFJ4p=UGu-hRB-oNL@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9BE1170D378AFF47BAA5A0949EDBF76C0C780472@APOLLON.pers.ad.uni-graz.at>

In full support.

Wolfgang Benedek

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek
Institute for International Law and International Relations
University of Graz
Universitätsstraße 15, A4
A-8010 Graz
Tel.: +43/316/380/3411
Fax: +43/316/380/9455


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: izumiaizu at gmail.com [mailto:izumiaizu at gmail.com] Im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 09. Dezember 2010 01:53
An: Governance List
Betreff: [governance] <Urgent> Draft Joint Letter protesting CSTD WG composition only by governments

Dear list,

The "rumor" that the decision to compose CSTD WG only by governments
is now proven to be true, decided by very few members of CSTD.

I have contacted ICC and ISOC, similar to the joint letter work we had on
Dec 14 consultation on enhanced cooperation. They shared the same
concern and worked out with many others mostly at ICANN Cartagena
meeting including ICANN, government folks etc:  UK, Sweden, US,
ICANN, ccNSO etc.

Here is the draft text as of now. They plan to send it shortly, and asking IGC
to join. There may be last-minute minor edit, but it is almost final.

I propose that IGC to sign. IF you have any comments or suggestions,
please reply to this quickly.  In general, we need 48 hours to decide,
but in this
special case, we may not have that luxury of time.

I have prepared our own draft (sorry for the complication), and now
it is being edited by our nominees for CSTD WG. My suggestion is
to carry on this draft as well, and send it in addition to the joint one.

I will post that draft in a separate email and welcome your comments.
We will send that and perhaps make statement at Dec 17 WG meeting
if they do not change their decision. We will also include that and
read that at Dec 14 EC consultation meeting in New York.

Sorry for the confusing manner, but this could happen, and I think
acting quickly to keep the Multi-stakeholder framework is urgently
needed and important for us.

I hope you understand and support this.

best,

izumi

------------------
DRAFT

To Frederic Riehl
Cc Ghana Chair of the CSTD

We are surprised and deeply concerned by the CSTD Bureau's decision
that  the Working Group on IGF Improvements mandated by resolution
(2010/2) of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
will be composed exclusively of member states.
This ECOSOC resolution, which was initially negotiated during the CSTD
in May 2010 by or in the presence of many of the signatories below,
asked the Chair of the CSTD to establish a Working Group to: "seek,
compile and review inputs from all Member States and all other
stakeholders on improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF),
in line with the mandate set out in the Tunis Agenda".
These words are a clear reference to the paragraph of the WSIS Plan of
Action (Geneva 2003) that led to the establishment of the very
successful Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) and ultimately
the creation of the IGF itself:

We ask the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a working
group on Internet governance, in an open and inclusive process that
ensures a mechanism for the full and active participation of
governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing
and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and
international organizations and forums, to investigate and make
proposals for action.

We therefore expected that the composition of the Working Group would
be strongly inspired by the methodology adopted for setting up the
multi-stakeholder WGIG, as stated as the CSTD Vice-Chair's
recommendation in his report on the meeting he convened on 16
September 2010.

The format decided by the Bureau of the CSTD is contrary to both the
letter and the spirit of the ECOSOC resolution and is therefore not
acceptable.

In any event, it is not up to the Bureau of the CSTD