From siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com Mon Feb 1 01:43:20 2010 From: siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com (Siranush Vardanyan) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 06:43:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: If I am not late for the deadline, here is my vote: Yes + thematic working groups Best Siranush Vardanyan From: jeremy at ciroap.org Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:10:27 +0800 To: divina.meigs at orange.fr; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Consensus call on IGC statement: please respond YES On 30/01/2010, at 8:53 PM, Divina MEIGS wrote: Yes + thematic working groups I really think at this stage no text should be in brackets and as many ideas should be made as visible as possible. The discussion among us that this has generated can continue among ourselves, with or without consensus, but it is important to be strong in the face of the other stakeholders at this stage of the negotiation. Yes, absolutely, the brackets will be removed when the statement is submitted. They are just present now for our own reference. -- 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. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From puna_gb at yahoo.com Mon Feb 1 04:01:39 2010 From: puna_gb at yahoo.com (Gao Mosweu) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 01:01:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] My vote In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <512191.68964.qm@web31506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Yes + thematic working groups -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 04:22:04 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:22:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls In-Reply-To: <1B158610-7A6C-4B49-A331-73B957CCB0FB@ciroap.org> References: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> <1B158610-7A6C-4B49-A331-73B957CCB0FB@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <954259bd1002010122q1addac77if0bcae78d584f067@mail.gmail.com> Dear Jeremy, Just a few comments on process, following your exchanges : - distiction between voting and consensus is important. the goal in drafting documents and inputs is to get consensus and avoid voting as much as possible (espectially as the number of people actually voting on drafts is always relatively limited and this can reduce the credibility of the outcome unnecessarily in the view of outside actors) - irrespective of the online tools that can be potentially used, there is one thing we could explore in preparing such inputs : the creation of a "drafting team", whose responsibility is to sift through the comments on the list, prepare a skeleton of comments and identify the points that : 1. seem to get consensus and don't need to be discussed further 2. get significant support but need refining of the formulation 3. raise a potentially contentious topic and require an in-depth discussion - the process, conducted iteratively, allows to progress in the drafting without reopening everything until the last minute - additionally, dissenting views can be integrated with formulations like : "some members of the IGC nonetheless believe that ...." - formation of a drafting group (different for each issue) can be done through volunteeers and would alleviate the burden on the co-coordinators (otherwise, they will be in charge of all drafting); - co-coordinators could therefore devote more time to identifying occasions where input will be needed (so as to prepare in advance and not ant the last minute), as well as topics on which some sort of issue paper could be prepared (for instance, once the main sessions themes for an IGF are defined, the iGC could endeavour to prepare some neutral background material). I hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 01/02/2010, at 3:12 AM, McTim wrote: > > > However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting and finding > > consensus. IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing coordinators. > > > > Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO we do NOT > > vote on statements. We indicate support for statements (or lack > > thereof). While the difference is subtle it is important for some of > > us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as is. > > I have no problem with that. Thanks for the suggestion. > > >> It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we > could > >> experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need > for > >> confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's > >> approach would (in my view) have required in this case. > > > > As long as we use the website specified in the charter. > > I would love that to be so, but it's not technically possible. :-( We > don't have sufficient access rights to the igcaucus.org Web site for the > necessary software to be installed there. I would have to use the > igf-online.net site, which is meant as a public, non-partisan site open to > all to use for IGF-related purposes. I am currently its administrator after > inheriting it from the defunct Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, but > would love for some other group (eg. the Remote Participation Working Group) > to officially take it over. > > -- > 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 > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 04:52:47 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 17:52:47 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I'm not sure that I completely understand the possible implications of this but on the face of it I would support this approach. MBG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development > agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights > discussions which was evident last year - if anyone has suggestions on > how we might achieve this I would be interested. Here is a suggestion. Why don't we pitch instead of a "Right to Internet Development", which would be the right to develop Internet policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion, independent from commercial and governmental interests. This combines Rights and a Development Agenda together in once concept. I would think the technical community would get behind this! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 06:22:43 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 14:22:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <5AC359D2-93D8-476B-BD5C-3A9EF1F5E972@ciroap.org> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B3D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <70FD511F-C8D9-4E7B-9113-B0E9047C94FB@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B62BA33.6070908@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: > > and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF > Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the point > not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present meeting will > decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about these key themes for > each IGF. > > I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet' as a > theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored workshop in IGF > Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken forward in a main session > now) > > Ginger will be at the open consultation meeting and can deliver an oral > statement on themes for the Vilnius meeting, separately to our statement > looking back at Sharm el Sheikh.  It is entirely appropriate to split up our > statements like this, and there is precedent for it. > So, let's get to work on such a statement now. Done (rewritten our statement from pre-Egypt: IGC Statement on Themes for IGF 2010 The Internet Governance Caucus supports the "Right to Internet Development" as a major theme for IGF-5 in Vilnius. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of Principles and Best Practices in relation to Internet policy development, and how they relate to pre-existing conditions in Internet Governance. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. This concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness, transparency and bottom up Internet policy and standards development. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant theme of the need to maintain interoperability and openness to ensure the continued availability of the Internet ‘commons’, while adding the important issues of devices, content and applications of their choice. In keeping with current national and international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. Net neutrality can often mean different things to different people. The IGC feels that at a minimum, net neutrality discussions in the IGF should recognize the principle of nondiscrimination of Internet traffic based on the ownership, source, destination, port or protocol, keeping in mind that providers must actively manage their networks in the face of growing threats from SPAM, DDOS attacks and other forms of abuse. this principle must apply to both wireless and wireline broadband infrastructure. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that govern Internet policy making. Given that Internet development and innovation contributes significantly to economic and social development, the IGC strongly supports the rights of people everywhere to contribute to the continued eveolution of the Internet and its policy and standards making bodies. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2010 in Latvia as a proven method to include new voices. Best Practices in this area would be a sub-theme of the Right to Internet Development. -- 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 Mon Feb 1 07:09:42 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:09:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B66C486.3010102@cafonso.ca> There is a current of thought in the US which is strongly against the concepts of net neutrality, while we remain without any consensus on what to do against the evident intervention of operators and governments on what we do on the network, on how our packets travel (if they do travel at all), on how to cope with incredible impositions like the 10% guarantee over actual transit, on how our content is sniffed, illegally stored and manipulated as it travels through the networks. If the concept needs qualification for intellectuals to tolerate or accept it, this is also the case of a myriad of others ("open internet" of course included), so let us qualify it and not just dismiss it as useless. If there is a need of relabeling the issue, just because the FCC did this or otherwise (the precious time we lose in form in detriment of function...), fine, but let us not drop the essentials. Outside of the US, we continue in most places to experience the damage of outright violations, and as a result all we manage to do is keep quiet as a caucus when people propose this as a main topic for the IGF. So should we continue to be happy with this relegated to a workshop? --c.a. Lee W McKnight wrote: > Like Ian i am happier I am happier with the phrase 'open internet;' but would rather drop the phrase net neutrailty altogether. If I can't persuade rest of you to go along with that, then at least open internet should come 1st and net neutrality phrase 2nd. > > In sum: I strongly support an IGC statement calling for 'Open Internet' to be a main theme. > > My rationale: frankly 'net neutrality' as a stand-alone phrase is very 2008/dated. > > For example: The FCC launched an openinternet.gov website; and 'open internet' notice of proposed rulemaking - sometimes referred to as net neutrailty rulemaking, but that's not what the FCC is calling it. Reply comments are due march 5th if we/IGC care to comment ; ). > > From the FCC's openinternet.gov website: > > Get Informed about the Open Internet > * Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) > > About the Open Internet NPRM > What Is the Open Internet, and What Does the FCC Have To Do With It? > > The "open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It’s "open" because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and because it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. This means an innovator in a garage or a student in a dorm room can easily invent and launch a new online service, and that content from a small business or a blogger can reach customers and audiences as easily as content from a multinational corporation or a major newspaper. Once you’re online, you don’t have to ask permission or pay tolls to broadband providers to reach others on the network. If you develop an innovative new website, you don’t have to get permission to share it with the world. Many believe that this freedom to communicate and innovate without permission is a big cause of the Internet’s remarkable success. > > But the Internet’s openness appears to face some emerging challenges, such as incidents where broadband providers have restricted the applications their customers can use over their Internet connections, a lack of transparency about how consumers’ Internet service will function, and congestion on the network. > > In light of these emerging challenges and uncertainties about existing policies, last month the FCC began a process to seek public input on draft rules of the road that would clarify and supplement current FCC policies to protect the open Internet. These basic, high-level rules would ensure that broadband providers don’t block consumers from accessing the content and applications of their choice, don’t deprive consumers of their entitlement to competition, and don’t discriminate against or in favor of traffic, and they would require broadband providers to disclose basic information about broadband service. Recognizing that the proposed framework needs to balance potentially competing interests while helping to ensure an open, safe, and secure Internet, the draft rules would permit broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management, including but not limited to efforts to block spam and ensure that heavy users don’t crowd out other users. > > To launch the rulemaking process, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, often referred to as the "open Internet NPRM." As the FCC always does when it considers new rules, it has asked the public for input, and anyone may submit comments over a period of several months. After the deadline for comments has passed and the FCC has reviewed the public’s input, the FCC’s five Commissioners may vote to adopt rules on these issues. > ________________________________________ > From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:21 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > I’d certainly like to see network neutrality/ open internet advanced as a theme, and seeing net neutrality can be so confusing I’d like to see open Internet added after it. > > IGC co sponsored a very successful three hour workshop on this at Sharm with Diplo. There are many issues, content neutrality probably sitting highest in my mind. Its worthy of a main session as the current main session themes we have repeated for some years are getting a little tired. > > And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might achieve this I would be interested. > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:27 +0800 > To: > Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > On 29/01/2010, at 6:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it needs to be very long, and indeed we could just put forward some bullet points for Ginger to elaborate upon on the day. So far we have on the table the following substantive themes: > > * Human rights > * Development agenda > * Network neutrality/Open Internet > > Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which Parminder has just introduced? > > With just over a week to go there have still been no comments on this thread so far, so I will try to summarise some of the arguments that are usually made for and against this theme, as a way of kick-starting discussion: > > FOR: > > Network neutrality (or "open Internet") emphasises the interest of Internet users in being able, by default, to access content, services and applications free from corporate or governmental interference (though there are cases in which compelling interests may require exceptions to this general principle). Network neutrality also stands for the treatment of intermediaries (again, by default) as conduits for information, rather than gatekeepers who bear liability for the content they carry. > > AGAINST: > > Network neutrality is a confusing phrase with many different meanings to different people. For example it is still wrongly thought of as preventing individual network operators from managing their bandwidth, which will only lead to misunderstandings in Vilnius (like the arguments over whether "critical Internet resources" includes electricity). On the other hand "Open Internet" doesn't seem to add anything to the existing "Openness" theme, so why not just keep using that existing theme instead? > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Feb 1 07:21:18 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:21:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] Process issues for future consensus calls In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002010122q1addac77if0bcae78d584f067@mail.gmail.com> References: <7048891E-4BE3-4FCB-9E9C-FD7DCEE19FEF@ciroap.org> <1B158610-7A6C-4B49-A331-73B957CCB0FB@ciroap.org> <954259bd1002010122q1addac77if0bcae78d584f067@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B66C73E.9080200@cafonso.ca> Dear Bertrand, in my view, this is certainly a reference list, but a lot of it was done, in certain ways, in this process. It is hard to follow this by the book in a group which is totally asynchronous (many are just returning from holidays now, as it happens in July-August in the North, for example), entirely composed of volunteers, and in which all is done through an email list with very lightweight moderation (as it should be). So, OK, let us consider suggestions as these as templates which, once agreed upon, we will try to follow as much as possible and within our obvious limitations -- which, by the way, the likes of Nitin know about, so they will take our collective statements with these limitatins in mind. Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Jeremy, > > Just a few comments on process, following your exchanges : > > - distiction between voting and consensus is important. the goal in drafting > documents and inputs is to get consensus and avoid voting as much as > possible (espectially as the number of people actually voting on drafts is > always relatively limited and this can reduce the credibility of the outcome > unnecessarily in the view of outside actors) > - irrespective of the online tools that can be potentially used, there is > one thing we could explore in preparing such inputs : the creation of a > "drafting team", whose responsibility is to sift through the comments on the > list, prepare a skeleton of comments and identify the points that : > > 1. seem to get consensus and don't need to be discussed further > 2. get significant support but need refining of the formulation > 3. raise a potentially contentious topic and require an in-depth > discussion > > - the process, conducted iteratively, allows to progress in the drafting > without reopening everything until the last minute > - additionally, dissenting views can be integrated with formulations like : > "some members of the IGC nonetheless believe that ...." > - formation of a drafting group (different for each issue) can be done > through volunteeers and would alleviate the burden on the co-coordinators > (otherwise, they will be in charge of all drafting); > - co-coordinators could therefore devote more time to identifying occasions > where input will be needed (so as to prepare in advance and not ant the last > minute), as well as topics on which some sort of issue paper could be > prepared (for instance, once the main sessions themes for an IGF are > defined, the iGC could endeavour to prepare some neutral background > material). > > I hope this helps. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 2:06 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> On 01/02/2010, at 3:12 AM, McTim wrote: >> >>> However, I do have a problem with the conflation of voting and finding >>> consensus. IIRC, we vote ONLY when electing coordinators. >>> >>> Let's keep the word "voting/vote" ONLY for elections, IMO we do NOT >>> vote on statements. We indicate support for statements (or lack >>> thereof). While the difference is subtle it is important for some of >>> us, and is one of the reasons we approved the charter as is. >> I have no problem with that. Thanks for the suggestion. >> >>>> It may be possible for technology to come to our aid here, in that we >> could >>>> experiment with collectively drafting documents online without the need >> for >>>> confusing exchanges of emails with many bracketed sections, as Bill's >>>> approach would (in my view) have required in this case. >>> As long as we use the website specified in the charter. >> I would love that to be so, but it's not technically possible. :-( We >> don't have sufficient access rights to the igcaucus.org Web site for the >> necessary software to be installed there. I would have to use the >> igf-online.net site, which is meant as a public, non-partisan site open to >> all to use for IGF-related purposes. I am currently its administrator after >> inheriting it from the defunct Online Collaboration Dynamic Coalition, but >> would love for some other group (eg. the Remote Participation Working Group) >> to officially take it over. >> >> -- >> 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Feb 1 08:13:47 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 05:13:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: DEEE1081D4AA4DC3A02C64601766949E@userPC Message-ID: I second Michael Gurstein's motion. Jeremy, could we please Poll this for adoption. > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-02/msg00002.html > ... > "Right to Internet Development", which would be the right to develop Internet > policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion, > independent from commercial and governmental interests. > > This combines Rights and a Development Agenda together in once concept. > ... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 1 08:31:30 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 05:31:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B66C486.3010102@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <14996.96702.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> What does this mean?  Net Neutrality seems a good "current".  The US definately has "industrialist" types that could use a little more "governance".  But Carlos we cannot stay so "neutral" in our speech that we do not say things clearly. --- On Mon, 2/1/10, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: There is a current of thought in the US which is strongly against the concepts of net neutrality, .......    Outside of the US, we continue in most places to experience the damage of outright violations, and as a result  all we manage to do is keep quiet as a caucus when people propose this as a main topic for the IGF. So should we continue to be happy with this relegated to a workshop? --c.a. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Feb 1 08:41:49 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 05:41:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] California's Lessons for Iceland [and Internet Governance (implied)] Message-ID: I felt this article had some value when you make parallels too how Internet Governance is handled, within various bodies. ... It is a popular misconception to refer to most Western countries as "democracies." In fact, they all are some sort of representative democracy. There have been no direct democracies in the West of any importance since Alexander the Great took Athens. Like the United States, Iceland is a republic; article I of the Icelandic Constitution states: "Iceland is a Republic with a parliamentary government." The rationale for a representative democracy is that the issues facing a government are too varied and detailed to expect the electorate to adequately study each issue. The fear is that modern propaganda can be used to bamboozle the masses into agreeing to laws that are not in their best interest or to permit a small dedicated group to bind the entire population when there is low voter turnout, which is how Hitler and Mussolini, for example, seized and maintained power. The creation of a professional political class is (in an ideal world) supposed to ensure that dedicated individuals are able to devote their full efforts to determining the nation's optimal goals and how to achieve them. ... The Author in regards to 'Referendum Processes' makes note by example of the California Legislature, that a referendum process can also have its problematic limits. - California's Lessons for Iceland by Iris ErlingsdottirIcelandic journalist and writer The Huffington Post | January 31, 2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com Art.Ref.: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/iris-lee/californias-lessons-for-i_b_443449.html Print: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/iris-lee/californias-lessons-for-i_b_443449.html?view=print --- -30- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 1 08:43:29 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 05:43:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Including Rights In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <673579.25984.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> McTim makes an excellent point. A cross over development approach would bring more into the fold while giving the overseers less of a denial of inclusion argument.   There are generally two hisorical approaches to the advocacy of expansion of Human Rights. One is an outside looking in demanding approach, and the other an insider job with multiple objectives being framed by the promoters.  I think that we have seen that the exclusive concentration on Human Rights by any organization is idealistic and usually leads to antisocial fanaticism.  Where as, when the Human Rights are enveloped into a pre-or - concurrently existing structure for the promotion of more tangible advancement it gains credibility and strength. --- On Mon, 2/1/10, michael gurstein wrote: From: michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "'McTim'" , "'Ian Peter'" Date: Monday, February 1, 2010, 9:52 AM I'm not sure that I completely understand the possible implications of this but on the face of it I would support this approach. MBG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development > agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights > discussions which was evident last year - if anyone has suggestions on > how we might achieve this I would be interested. Here is a suggestion.  Why don't we pitch instead of a "Right to Internet Development", which would be the right to develop Internet policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion, independent from commercial and governmental interests. This combines Rights and a Development Agenda together in once concept. I would think the technical community would get behind this! -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 1 08:54:12 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 05:54:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <955945.1790.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Perhaps it could be worrisome to relegate and demote Human Rights to "HR". Interesting that we see the use of HR generally for that strange "science of Human Resources".  What I do think would do the cause well is an acronym that will be catchy and help pitch the idea vis a vie the Human Rignts of the Internet. My first thought was the sound "rights" being applied to Human Rights of the Internet Theory = HRIT. --- On Mon, 2/1/10, McTim wrote: From: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, February 1, 2010, 11:22 AM All On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: > > and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF > Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the point > not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present meeting will > decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about these key themes for > each IGF. > > I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet' as a > theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored workshop in IGF > Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken forward in a main session > now) > > Ginger will be at the open consultation meeting and can deliver an oral > statement on themes for the Vilnius meeting, separately to our statement > looking back at Sharm el Sheikh.  It is entirely appropriate to split up our > statements like this, and there is precedent for it. > So, let's get to work on such a statement now. Done (rewritten our statement from pre-Egypt: IGC Statement on Themes for IGF 2010 The Internet Governance Caucus supports the "Right to Internet Development" as a major theme for IGF-5 in Vilnius. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of Principles and Best Practices in relation to Internet policy development, and how they relate to pre-existing conditions in Internet Governance. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. This concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness, transparency and bottom up Internet policy and standards development. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant theme of the need to maintain interoperability and openness to ensure the continued availability of the Internet ‘commons’, while adding the important issues of devices, content and applications of their choice. In keeping with current national and international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. Net neutrality can often mean different things to different people. The IGC feels that at a minimum, net neutrality discussions in the IGF should recognize the principle of nondiscrimination of Internet traffic based on the ownership, source, destination, port or protocol, keeping in mind that providers must actively manage their networks in the face of growing threats from SPAM, DDOS attacks and other forms of abuse. this principle must apply to both wireless and wireline broadband infrastructure. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that govern Internet policy making. Given that Internet development and innovation contributes significantly to economic and social development, the IGC strongly supports the rights of people everywhere to contribute to the continued eveolution of the Internet and its policy and standards making bodies. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder  process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2010 in Latvia as a proven method to include new voices. Best Practices in this area would be a sub-theme of the Right to Internet Development. -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Mon Feb 1 08:56:26 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 05:56:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <188343.55366.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I fully support working in this direction,,,, but thirding may be premature ;-) --- On Mon, 2/1/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: RE: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Monday, February 1, 2010, 1:13 PM I second Michael Gurstein's motion. Jeremy, could we please Poll this for adoption. > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-02/msg00002.html > ... > "Right to Internet Development", which would be the right to develop Internet > policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion, > independent from commercial and governmental interests. > > This combines Rights and a Development Agenda together in once concept. > ... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 1 09:53:02 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:53:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B66470E.4090007@itforchange.net> References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B66470E.4090007@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E5708@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Parminder, Lee: As was discussed at the IGF panel in Egypt, while the term NN has its problems (it basically articulates a goal rather than a full-fledged regulatory policy, and a great deal of confusion has emerged around the issue of differentiation of bandwidth) the term "open internet" is too vapid and meaningless to be put forward as an alternative. Insofar as people can agree on using the term "open" it is precisely because it is largely meaningless. That certainly explains the FCC's choice (the FCC must find a middle ground between a strong NN movement and the business lobbyists/carriers). As for being dated, surely Lee knows that "open" is "so 1985" and makes Net Neutrality look fresh and young by comparison. All that being said, Lee's proposed title is acceptable to me: 'Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture' ________________________________ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:14 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Cc: Ian Peter Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius Lee The rest of the world may be a little behind US on this debate, and Network Neutrality (NN) terms makes clearer sense to most. On the other hand open Internet is a little less clear as to its precise meaning. For instance, 'openness' as an IGF theme has mostly dealt with entirely different issues. Also IGC and Diplo Foundation co-sponsored workshop went with the NN label and could get most of the discussion focus on the right points. Let us not be hung up on one name or the other as far as we can make the judgment on what name would convey the right (or thereabout) meaning to most in an IGF setting. Nobody today seriously believes that NN means absolutely no network management at all, even for issues like security. May I propose we call it 'Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture' Parminder Lee W McKnight wrote: Like Ian i am happier I am happier with the phrase 'open internet;' but would rather drop the phrase net neutrailty altogether. If I can't persuade rest of you to go along with that, then at least open internet should come 1st and net neutrality phrase 2nd. In sum: I strongly support an IGC statement calling for 'Open Internet' to be a main theme. My rationale: frankly 'net neutrality' as a stand-alone phrase is very 2008/dated. For example: The FCC launched an openinternet.gov website; and 'open internet' notice of proposed rulemaking - sometimes referred to as net neutrailty rulemaking, but that's not what the FCC is calling it. Reply comments are due march 5th if we/IGC care to comment ; ). From the FCC's openinternet.gov website: Get Informed about the Open Internet * Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) About the Open Internet NPRM What Is the Open Internet, and What Does the FCC Have To Do With It? The "open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It's "open" because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and because it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. This means an innovator in a garage or a student in a dorm room can easily invent and launch a new online service, and that content from a small business or a blogger can reach customers and audiences as easily as content from a multinational corporation or a major newspaper. Once you're online, you don't have to ask permission or pay tolls to broadband providers to reach others on the network. If you develop an innovative new website, you don't have to get permission to share it with the world. Many believe that this freedom to communicate and innovate without permission is a big cause of the Internet's remarkable success. But the Internet's openness appears to face some emerging challenges, such as incidents where broadband providers have restricted the applications their customers can use over their Internet connections, a lack of transparency about how consumers' Internet service will function, and congestion on the network. In light of these emerging challenges and uncertainties about existing policies, last month the FCC began a process to seek public input on draft rules of the road that would clarify and supplement current FCC policies to protect the open Internet. These basic, high-level rules would ensure that broadband providers don't block consumers from accessing the content and applications of their choice, don't deprive consumers of their entitlement to competition, and don't discriminate against or in favor of traffic, and they would require broadband providers to disclose basic information about broadband service. Recognizing that the proposed framework needs to balance potentially competing interests while helping to ensure an open, safe, and secure Internet, the draft rules would permit broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management, including but not limited to efforts to block spam and ensure that heavy users don't crowd out other users. To launch the rulemaking process, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, often referred to as the "open Internet NPRM." As the FCC always does when it considers new rules, it has asked the public for input, and anyone may submit comments over a period of several months. After the deadline for comments has passed and the FCC has reviewed the public's input, the FCC's five Commissioners may vote to adopt rules on these issues. ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius I'd certainly like to see network neutrality/ open internet advanced as a theme, and seeing net neutrality can be so confusing I'd like to see open Internet added after it. IGC co sponsored a very successful three hour workshop on this at Sharm with Diplo. There are many issues, content neutrality probably sitting highest in my mind. Its worthy of a main session as the current main session themes we have repeated for some years are getting a little tired. And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions which was evident last year - if anyone has suggestions on how we might achieve this I would be interested. ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:27 +0800 To: Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius On 29/01/2010, at 6:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it needs to be very long, and indeed we could just put forward some bullet points for Ginger to elaborate upon on the day. So far we have on the table the following substantive themes: * Human rights * Development agenda * Network neutrality/Open Internet Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which Parminder has just introduced? With just over a week to go there have still been no comments on this thread so far, so I will try to summarise some of the arguments that are usually made for and against this theme, as a way of kick-starting discussion: FOR: Network neutrality (or "open Internet") emphasises the interest of Internet users in being able, by default, to access content, services and applications free from corporate or governmental interference (though there are cases in which compelling interests may require exceptions to this general principle). Network neutrality also stands for the treatment of intermediaries (again, by default) as conduits for information, rather than gatekeepers who bear liability for the content they carry. AGAINST: Network neutrality is a confusing phrase with many different meanings to different people. For example it is still wrongly thought of as preventing individual network operators from managing their bandwidth, which will only lead to misunderstandings in Vilnius (like the arguments over whether "critical Internet resources" includes electricity). On the other hand "Open Internet" doesn't seem to add anything to the existing "Openness" theme, so why not just keep using that existing theme instead? -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 10:06:48 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:36:48 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E5708@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B66470E.4090007@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E5708@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B66EE08.7010803@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Mon Feb 1 10:14:44 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 13:14:44 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B66EE08.7010803@paque.net> References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B66470E.4090007@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E5708@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B66EE08.7010803@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B66EFE4.5030806@cafonso.ca> I appreciate the efforts to arrive at a consensus terminology, but "neutral" does not necessarily derive from "open". We need to think a bit more about it, I guess. Mostly, to make sure we manage to insert this as a main theme and not just a workshop. frt rgds --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > Lee said: > > "In sum: I strongly support an IGC statement calling for 'Open Internet' > to be a main theme." > and > 'Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture' > > Both of these options are great if they allow space for discussion of > underlying openness, which may be a good way to approach IRP without > triggering any strong opposition. I don't think it matters if "Open Internet" > is dated as a phrase if it conveys the meaning we want. > > I ask those who have a better grasp of the terminology to explain if the > wording of 'Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture' > is likely to be interpreted as a "technical topic" more suited to a panel > or workshop than an overall theme for the IGF 2010. > > Best, Ginger > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> >> Parminder, Lee: >> >> >> >> As was discussed at the IGF panel in Egypt, while the term NN has its problems >> (it basically articulates a goal rather than a full-fledged regulatory policy, >> and a great deal of confusion has emerged around the issue of differentiation >> of bandwidth) the term “open internet” is too vapid and meaningless to be put >> forward as an alternative. Insofar as people can agree on using the term >> “open” it is precisely because it is largely meaningless. >> >> That certainly explains the FCC’s choice (the FCC must find a middle ground >> between a strong NN movement and the business lobbyists/carriers). As for >> being dated, surely Lee knows that “open” is “so 1985” and makes Net >> Neutrality look fresh and young by comparison. >> >> >> >> All that being said, Lee’s proposed title is acceptable to me: 'Network >> Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture' >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> *From:* Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] >> *Sent:* Sunday, January 31, 2010 10:14 PM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight >> *Cc:* Ian Peter >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius >> >> >> >> Lee >> >> The rest of the world may be a little behind US on this debate, and Network >> Neutrality (NN) terms makes clearer sense to most. On the other hand open >> Internet is a little less clear as to its precise meaning. For instance, >> 'openness' as an IGF theme has mostly dealt with entirely different issues. >> Also IGC and Diplo Foundation co-sponsored workshop went with the NN label and >> could get most of the discussion focus on the right points. Let us not be hung >> up on one name or the other as far as we can make the judgment on what name >> would convey the right (or thereabout) meaning to most in an IGF setting. >> Nobody today seriously believes that NN means absolutely no network management >> at all, even for issues like security. >> >> May I propose we call it 'Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet >> Architecture' >> >> >> Parminder >> >> Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> Like Ian i am happier I am happier with the phrase 'open internet;' but would rather drop the phrase net neutrailty altogether. If I can't persuade rest of you to go along with that, then at least open internet should come 1st and net neutrality phrase 2nd. >> >> In sum: I strongly support an IGC statement calling for 'Open Internet' to be a main theme. >> >> My rationale: frankly 'net neutrality' as a stand-alone phrase is very 2008/dated. >> >> For example: The FCC launched an openinternet.gov website; and 'open internet' notice of proposed rulemaking - sometimes referred to as net neutrailty rulemaking, but that's not what the FCC is calling it. Reply comments are due march 5th if we/IGC care to comment ; ). >> >> From the FCC's openinternet.gov website: >> >> Get Informed about the Open Internet >> * Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) >> >> About the Open Internet NPRM >> What Is the Open Internet, and What Does the FCC Have To Do With It? >> >> The "open Internet" is the Internet as we know it. It’s "open" because it uses free, publicly available standards that anyone can access and build to, and because it treats all traffic that flows across the network in roughly the same way. This means an innovator in a garage or a student in a dorm room can easily invent and launch a new online service, and that content from a small business or a blogger can reach customers and audiences as easily as content from a multinational corporation or a major newspaper. Once you’re online, you don’t have to ask permission or pay tolls to broadband providers to reach others on the network. If you develop an innovative new website, you don’t have to get permission to share it with the world. Many believe that this freedom to communicate and innovate without permission is a big cause of the Internet’s remarkable success. >> >> But the Internet’s openness appears to face some emerging challenges, such as incidents where broadband providers have restricted the applications their customers can use over their Internet connections, a lack of transparency about how consumers’ Internet service will function, and congestion on the network. >> >> In light of these emerging challenges and uncertainties about existing policies, last month the FCC began a process to seek public input on draft rules of the road that would clarify and supplement current FCC policies to protect the open Internet. These basic, high-level rules would ensure that broadband providers don’t block consumers from accessing the content and applications of their choice, don’t deprive consumers of their entitlement to competition, and don’t discriminate against or in favor of traffic, and they would require broadband providers to disclose basic information about broadband service. Recognizing that the proposed framework needs to balance potentially competing interests while helping to ensure an open, safe, and secure Internet, the draft rules would permit broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management, including but not limited to efforts to block spam and ensure that heavy users don’ >> t crowd out other users. >> >> To launch the rulemaking process, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, often referred to as the "open Internet NPRM." As the FCC always does when it considers new rules, it has asked the public for input, and anyone may submit comments over a period of several months. After the deadline for comments has passed and the FCC has reviewed the public’s input, the FCC’s five Commissioners may vote to adopt rules on these issues. >> ________________________________________ >> From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com ] >> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 4:21 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius >> >> I’d certainly like to see network neutrality/ open internet advanced as a theme, and seeing net neutrality can be so confusing I’d like to see open Internet added after it. >> >> IGC co sponsored a very successful three hour workshop on this at Sharm with Diplo. There are many issues, content neutrality probably sitting highest in my mind. Its worthy of a main session as the current main session themes we have repeated for some years are getting a little tired. >> >> And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might achieve this I would be interested. >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Jeremy Malcolm >> Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm >> Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 16:40:27 +0800 >> To: >> Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius >> >> On 29/01/2010, at 6:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> So, let's get to work on such a statement now. I don't think it needs to be very long, and indeed we could just put forward some bullet points for Ginger to elaborate upon on the day. So far we have on the table the following substantive themes: >> >> * Human rights >> * Development agenda >> * Network neutrality/Open Internet >> >> Comments, please, particularly on the last of these which Parminder has just introduced? >> >> With just over a week to go there have still been no comments on this thread so far, so I will try to summarise some of the arguments that are usually made for and against this theme, as a way of kick-starting discussion: >> >> FOR: >> >> Network neutrality (or "open Internet") emphasises the interest of Internet users in being able, by default, to access content, services and applications free from corporate or governmental interference (though there are cases in which compelling interests may require exceptions to this general principle). Network neutrality also stands for the treatment of intermediaries (again, by default) as conduits for information, rather than gatekeepers who bear liability for the content they carry. >> >> AGAINST: >> >> Network neutrality is a confusing phrase with many different meanings to different people. For example it is still wrongly thought of as preventing individual network operators from managing their bandwidth, which will only lead to misunderstandings in Vilnius (like the arguments over whether "critical Internet resources" includes electricity). On the other hand "Open Internet" doesn't seem to add anything to the existing "Openness" theme, so why not just keep using that existing theme instead? >> -- >> 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 >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lehto.paul at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 10:40:15 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 10:40:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Including Rights In-Reply-To: <673579.25984.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <673579.25984.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <76f819dd1002010740s323649abm8e1b3000c1d721b1@mail.gmail.com> On 2/1/10, Eric Dierker wrote: > I think that we > have seen that the exclusive concentration on Human Rights by any > organization is idealistic and usually leads to antisocial fanaticism. > Where as, when the Human Rights are enveloped into a pre-or - concurrently > existing structure for the promotion of more tangible advancement it gains > credibility and strength. If someone reaches into someone one's pocket, depending on the specific activities in fishing around in one's pocket, this would constitute among other possibilities (if we think in terms of human rights) a violation of one's human rights to bodily integrity, and violation of human rights against assault and/or molestation, as well as human rights against theft of personal property. If a person or organization finds wrong in the above violations of human rights, are they engaging in "antisocial fanaticism" if they insist on complete removal of the fishing hand, return of all property, and punishment or damages for any molestation? In order to avoid "antisocial fanaticism" about human rights should these persons or organizations compromise and be more workable, such as by accepting half-justice in exchange for the hand being removed half way out of the pocket? Human rights, collectively, are the conditions upon which respectful social interactions and community take place. I suppose one might characterize my reaction to a hand in my pocket, as adamant and insistent as I would be about my rights, to be "antisocial fanaticism" because at that point I would not be seeking any social intercourse and would be very insistent on my rights, with no thought of compromise at all. Human rightrs are not properly subject of basic compromise. If this proposition is denied, or its enforcement deemed "fanaticism", then I think it may be appropriate to subject deniers to the hand in the pocket test and see if they're serious about condemning a "fanatical" approach to human rights. I believe no such test will actually be necessary, because upon approach of the "hand-person" we would find, I'm sure, an immediate, antisocial fanaticism in assertion of human rights. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 1 12:25:16 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 12:25:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: Net neutrality- towards a co-regulatory solution Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E571D@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Appropos of our recent discussions, here is a worthwhile and comprehensive academic discussion of the issue. -----Original Message----- From: Chris Marsden [mailto:ctmarsden at googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Chris Marsden Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 5:06 AM Dear all In the spirit of sharing...Here's the book 'Net neutrality: towards a co-regulatory solution' - its on a Creative Commons download from Bloomsbury Do share the URL as widely as possible - anyone can download, remix and repost the book, as long as they attribute it to me and do not try to resell it! Of course if you know anyone wishing to review (its a curate's egg, good in places) - either in print or blog - they will receive a free copy of the hardback. Thanks Chris -- More details by chris to Net neutrality in Europe at 1/29/2010 02:24:00 PM ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 15:43:02 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:13:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] Upcoming OC in Geneva Remote Participation Possibilities In-Reply-To: References: <4B5DF9E9.7090601@gmail.com> <701af9f71001251210v43502f97sae110deac2fd0543@mail.gmail.com> <4B5DFD53.6040706@paque.net> <4B5E00F3.7020106@gmail.com> <72858.57898.qm@web55204.mail.re4.yahoo.com> <4B5E0952.1090603@paque.net> <0A1EBE09-D16D-47B0-AA82-A336742F85C3@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B5EC4CB.3030700@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B673CD6.5030906@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 15:45:02 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:15:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] Registration for February IGF OC in Geneva Message-ID: <4B673D4E.4050000@gmail.com> Online registration for the February consultations is now open and will close on Friday 5 February 2010. Register at http://info.intgovforum.org/regfeb.php gp ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 15:49:52 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:19:52 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA Message-ID: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Mon Feb 1 16:31:55 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:31:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA In-Reply-To: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> Message-ID: We passed by the resto today and inquired, need to contact the manager when he's in tomorrow. Past experiences have been that when we had a group of like 15 they gave us the whole room, but on other occasions when we had more like 10 they had us share the room with other big groups, which made conversation a bit more difficult. So it would be very helpful to know for sure how many people we will have ASAP. Thanks, BIll On Feb 1, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > William Drake said: > > Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is generally very crowded, could be even on a Monday night. If you're thinking people will stand around at the bar drinking there's no problem, if you want to have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head count and to reserve the room on the side as in years past, if available. > > So far we have 11 people confirmed for an IGC meeting on Monday evening, February 8th at Les-Brasseurs, across Rue de Lausanne from Cornavin. > > Can anyone else join us for this planning session? ( OC on Tuesday morning ) Please confirm to me by email offlist. > > Best, > gp > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Mon Feb 1 16:38:59 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 16:38:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E5708@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <690339E1-04A1-477B-B58A-2D7532BCD3A8@ciroap.org>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBD9@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B66470E.4090007@itforchange.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E5708@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <5EAD59F9-52C8-440C-A1E3-F9FA52BD4912@psg.com> On 1 Feb 2010, at 09:53, Milton L Mueller wrote: > All that being said, Lee’s proposed title is acceptable to me: 'Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture' Not being in a position where I have an opinion on the topic one way or another, I do have a question. Normally an Architecture is a plan, design or a meta level explanation of some structure. So do you want to insure that the design remains open and neutral or the Internet itself? a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 17:48:59 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:48:59 +0800 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> Colleagues, I've been re-reading the below and I guess I'm uneasy with this (and with my earlier "endorsement") as it is now presented. I'm uneasy for a couple of reasons: First I don't see in the current formulation any real reference to "development" as I normally use the term i.e. referring to economic and social "development" rather than software "development"... I thought initially there might be some way of linking the two conceptually in this formulation but now looking at the formulation below I'm not so sure Second, as I've said in the past, I'm not very well versed in the use of the "Rights" concepts in these contexts but again on the face of it it now seems to me that the notion of a "Right to Internet development" is, as it is being presented below, rather too narrow and in a sense group specific (i.e. a right for Internet software developers to do what they do) and in that sense represents a debasing of the overall concept of "Rights". In my naïve view the invocation of the "Rights" formulations should probably be reserved for rather more basic and inclusive areas of application. If the notion being presented here is something on the order of a "Right to a free and open Internet" then I think it should probably be stated in some sort of similarly general terms i.e. terms that don't on the face of it seem simply to empower those with the technical capability to contribute to the (software) development of the Net. But again, perhaps I've misread the formulation and if so I would ask for some additional clarification (and perhaps elaboration or clarification of the proposed position statement). Best to all, MBG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:23 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius All On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: > > and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF > Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the > point not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present > meeting will decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about > these key themes for each IGF. > > I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet' > as a theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored > workshop in IGF Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken > forward in a main session > now) > > Ginger will be at the open consultation meeting and can deliver an > oral statement on themes for the Vilnius meeting, separately to our > statement looking back at Sharm el Sheikh.  It is entirely appropriate > to split up our statements like this, and there is precedent for it. > So, let's get to work on such a statement now. Done (rewritten our statement from pre-Egypt: IGC Statement on Themes for IGF 2010 The Internet Governance Caucus supports the "Right to Internet Development" as a major theme for IGF-5 in Vilnius. This should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and clarification of Principles and Best Practices in relation to Internet policy development, and how they relate to pre-existing conditions in Internet Governance. It also includes a space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. This concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness, transparency and bottom up Internet policy and standards development. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant theme of the need to maintain interoperability and openness to ensure the continued availability of the Internet ‘commons’, while adding the important issues of devices, content and applications of their choice. In keeping with current national and international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. Net neutrality can often mean different things to different people. The IGC feels that at a minimum, net neutrality discussions in the IGF should recognize the principle of nondiscrimination of Internet traffic based on the ownership, source, destination, port or protocol, keeping in mind that providers must actively manage their networks in the face of growing threats from SPAM, DDOS attacks and other forms of abuse. this principle must apply to both wireless and wireline broadband infrastructure. The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It allows for open examination of the principles that govern Internet policy making. Given that Internet development and innovation contributes significantly to economic and social development, the IGC strongly supports the rights of people everywhere to contribute to the continued eveolution of the Internet and its policy and standards making bodies. Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF 2010 in Latvia as a proven method to include new voices. Best Practices in this area would be a sub-theme of the Right to Internet Development. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 17:52:10 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:52:10 +0800 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] UN calls for global cyber treaty Message-ID: For the agenda of the next IGF? M From: Richard Forno Date: February 1, 2010 5:27:28 PM EST To: Infowarrior List Cc: Dave Farber Subject: UN calls for global cyber treaty Once again, we hear rumblings of "internet drivers' liscenses as part of any 'solutions' to 'protect' the net..... -rf UN calls for global cyber treaty http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/soa/UN-calls-for-global-cyber-treaty/0 ,130061744,339300673,00.htm?omnRef=1337 By AAP 01 February 2010 10:07 AM Tags: un, treaty, security, google, china, cyber, war, attack The world needs a treaty to prevent cyber attacks becoming an all-out war, the head of the main UN communications and technology agency has warned. International Telcommunications Union secretary general Hamadoun Toure gave his warning on Saturday at a World Economic Forum debate where experts said nations must now consider when a cyber attack becomes a declaration of war. With attacks on Google from China a major talking point in Davos, Toure said the risk of a cyber conflict between two nations grows every year. He proposed a treaty in which countries would engage not to make the first cyber strike against another nation. "A cyber war would be worse than a tsunami - a catastrophe," the UN official said, highlighting examples such as attacks on Estonia last year. He proposed an international accord, adding: "The framework would look like a peace treaty before a war." Countries should guarantee to protect their citizens and their right to access to information, promise not to harbour cyber terrorists and "should commit themselves not to attack another". John Negroponte, former director of US intelligence, said intelligence agencies in the major powers would be the first to "express reservations" about such an accord. Susan Collins, a US Republican senator who sits on several senate military and home affairs committees, said the prospect of a cyber attack sparking a war was now being considered in the United States. "If someone bombed the electric grid in our country and we saw the bombers coming in it would clearly be an act of war. "If that same country uses sophisticated computers to knock out our electricity grid, I definitely think we are getting closer to saying it is an act of war," Collins said. Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft, said "there are at least 10 countries in the world whose internet capability is sophisticated enough to carry out cyber attacks ... and they can make it appear to come from anywhere." "The internet is the biggest command and control centre for every bad guy out there," he said. The head of online security company McAfee told another Davos debate on Friday that China, the United States, Russia, Israel and France were among 20 countries locked in a cyberspace arms race and gearing up for possible internet hostilities. Mundie and other experts have said there is a growing need to police the internet to clampdown on fraud, espionage and the spread of viruses. "People don't understand the scale of criminal activity on the internet. Whether criminal, individual or nation states, the community is growing more sophisticated," the Microsoft executive said. "We need a kind of World Health Organisation for the internet," he said. He also called fo a "driver's licence" for internet users. "If you want to drive a car you have to have a licence to say that you are capable of driving a car, the car has to pass a test to say it is fit to drive and you have to have insurance." Archives !DSPAM:2676,4b67577f177551678732566! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Feb 1 21:33:16 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:33:16 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <076540E6-652D-4D08-B74A-72084589D37F@ciroap.org> On 01/02/2010, at 9:13 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: >> "Right to Internet Development", which would be the right to develop Internet >> policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion, >> independent from commercial and governmental interests. >> >> This combines Rights and a Development Agenda together in once concept. > > I second Michael Gurstein's motion. > > Jeremy, could we please Poll this for adoption. It could be a little premature for that. There seems to be more momentum around "Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture". But discussion is still open on both ideas. -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Feb 1 22:24:19 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 14:24:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <076540E6-652D-4D08-B74A-72084589D37F@ciroap.org> Message-ID: I have similar questions to Avri. Open architecture in an Internet environment or its predecessors has a specific meaning going back to 1972 when it was first introduced as a concept. It has very little to do with network neutrality or content at all unless you stretch the meaning to the point where it is ridiculous. It is a concept to do with creating a backbone for technical interoperability between disparate systems. Many of the problems that network neutrality seeks to address are simply not architectural or technical. A pressing one is the premium content charge, where carriers or mobile companies want to demand payments from content providers to get a quicker or more favourable exposure.(preferred search engine, social networking site etc). That's really not architectural at all - its a particular pattern of commercial behaviour that many of believe should be avoided because it distorts open access and the nature of the Internet. I am very happy with Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet. I can understand why people would like to make it an architectural argument - but I am not convinced that it accurate or likely to achieve a good result. > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:33:16 +0800 > To: , Yehuda Katz > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > On 01/02/2010, at 9:13 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > >>> "Right to Internet Development", which would be the right to develop >>> Internet >>> policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent >>> fashion, >>> independent from commercial and governmental interests. >>> >>> This combines Rights and a Development Agenda together in once concept. >> >> I second Michael Gurstein's motion. >> >> Jeremy, could we please Poll this for adoption. > > It could be a little premature for that. There seems to be more momentum > around "Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture". But > discussion is still open on both ideas. > > -- > 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 yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Feb 1 22:53:05 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:53:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: 8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC Message-ID: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Mon Feb 1 22:56:33 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 19:56:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius Message-ID: Michael, I see this as explicitly plausible; in terms of 'socio & economic development' we already see that cyber-real estate .dot (whatever interest) creates a basis for intellectual exploitation (Invention). Take for example .NYC, it is not-just-limited to enity within the Geographic area, The space is subject to the creative economic exploitation within the context of .NYC, that being so, should the Governance of the .NYC cyber-space employ Terms that create a 'Sustained Evolution of Concepts' [intellectual exploitation (a.k.a.: Invention!)] a distinct pattern(s) unique to New York City will be. The Socio patterns of life in .NYC give it, its flavor, its taste, its style. New York is New York because its New York (New Yorkers), Paris is Paris because its Paris, Berlin is Berlin because its Berlin .... A discussion on "Governance" that Gives-Life to CyberSpace, which in turn creates individually unique pools of expression (.NYC, .Paris, .Berlin, .dot...) which are Socially and Economically sustainable. The dynamics of a Metropolis are very useful here in discussion, for example: Urban Renewal, how can we relate that concept to Domain Expiration, so that the CyberSpace can be rejuvenated into something socially redeeming and economically positive (how can it be reinvented successfully?). Vertical Development (High Rises & Sky Scrapers) What Rules are necessary to keep the playing field level, but also allow Development to continue? Microsoft.Nyc, Microsoft.Paris, Microsoft.Berlin ... Sky Scrapers | Trump.NYC, TrumpPlaza.NYC, TrumpTowers.NYC ... High Rises What are the Limits for commercial development? What are the Guidelines for Public Development, what are the Requirements for Individual Development. Traffic (Net traffic | Search traffic): is there a System for Traffic Management? Imagine navigating your car through New York City with without Traffic Lights at 5:00pm - Chaos! Lots of things could be done, For instance ... what if the .NYC was divided into three-time-zones as follows: 00:00-08:00 hours [midnight to 8 a.m.] 08:00-17:00 hours [8 a.m. to 5 p.m.] 17:00-00:00 hours [5 p.m. to midnight] the following could evolve: time-slot-1.nyc [midnight to 8 a.m.] time-slot-2.nyc [8 a.m. to 5 p.m.] time-slot-3.nyc [5 p.m. to midnight] Three different websites working in the same Namespace at different times, is plausible when we consider that, New York City, Paris, Berlin, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Mumbi etc... are all a 24/7/365 Metropolis. Building Codes (Software Development) What technologies are currently 'allowed' for use in the space? In terms of Websites for example, If a .html website would be considered "out of building codes" as that html5 is now considered the "Standard", the website might be considered 'Condemned' until the Owner makes improvements or the cyberspace is slated for Urban Renewal. I think you get the idea. There is plenty of Socio-Economic Governance Formuli to discuss here. In this Arena (please excuse my french) Icann has fucked-up, They have sold out to commercial interest & profits. Which in turn has killed the existance of a 'Sustained Evolution of Concepts' (a.k.a.: Invention!). So this is what we need to shoot for, this is the Service we can provide. 'The Power of Process to the People', that enables Them to evolve and as a result, shape the Internet into life. Kind regards - Re: Michael Gurstein http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-02/msg00022.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Feb 1 23:32:07 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:02:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> Message-ID: Hello -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:18 PM Here is a suggestion. Why don't we pitch instead of a "Right to Internet Development", which would be the right to develop Internet policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion, independent from commercial and governmental interests. McTim On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development > agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions > which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might > achieve this I would be interested. On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:18 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Colleagues, > > First I don't see in the current formulation any real reference to > "development" > the notion of a "Right to Internet development" is, > --- rather too narrow and in a sense group > specific > MBG > "Right to Internet Development" or the 'right to develop Internet Policy' is something that we already have. The Internet Governance process is a mutli-stakeholder, participative process already; at the IGF, unlike in any other forum, the Civil Society equally participates in the policy making process, at least in the first step of it. So, why do we have to proclaim 'Right to develop Internet Policy' as a right, when participation is already a happening process? Why discuss and demand what is already given? But somehow a discussion on this, (without naming is as "Right to Governance or policy making" ) would be a good idea. It is time to have a discussion on the concept of participation or mutli-stakholder governance, as this is a phase of transition from the the first five years of mandate to the next five years of mandate. But it would be far more meaningful and effective, ( and a lot less controversial) if we can package this as a discussion at Vilinius on the trend of / need for / virtues of Mutli-stakhoder Governance. The idea is to have this concept fully endorsed for perpetuation, after which any issue, even Rights, can be discussed. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Tue Feb 2 00:55:46 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 00:55:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <076540E6-652D-4D08-B74A-72084589D37F@ciroap.org>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBE2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet works for me I would humbly disagree with Ian however re architecture which can be part of solution, also at content/apps layers, even if insufficient without also policy. Anyway, we're talking main theme which must be general enough to accomodate multiple interpretations. ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 10:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius I have similar questions to Avri. Open architecture in an Internet environment or its predecessors has a specific meaning going back to 1972 when it was first introduced as a concept. It has very little to do with network neutrality or content at all unless you stretch the meaning to the point where it is ridiculous. It is a concept to do with creating a backbone for technical interoperability between disparate systems. Many of the problems that network neutrality seeks to address are simply not architectural or technical. A pressing one is the premium content charge, where carriers or mobile companies want to demand payments from content providers to get a quicker or more favourable exposure.(preferred search engine, social networking site etc). That's really not architectural at all - its a particular pattern of commercial behaviour that many of believe should be avoided because it distorts open access and the nature of the Internet. I am very happy with Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet. I can understand why people would like to make it an architectural argument - but I am not convinced that it accurate or likely to achieve a good result. > From: Jeremy Malcolm > Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm > Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 10:33:16 +0800 > To: , Yehuda Katz > Subject: Re: [governance] Re: Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > On 01/02/2010, at 9:13 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > >>> "Right to Internet Development", which would be the right to develop >>> Internet >>> policy and standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent >>> fashion, >>> independent from commercial and governmental interests. >>> >>> This combines Rights and a Development Agenda together in once concept. >> >> I second Michael Gurstein's motion. >> >> Jeremy, could we please Poll this for adoption. > > It could be a little premature for that. There seems to be more momentum > around "Network Neutrality - Ensuring an Open Internet Architecture". But > discussion is still open on both ideas. > > -- > 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 2 01:16:40 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 22:16:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> How to Prevent Cyber War Experts think that the warning from Secretary General of UN communications and technology agency International Telecommunications Union, Mr Hamadoun Toure at World Economic Forum can prevent Cyber War between different nations. He proposed a treaty in which countries would engage not to make the first cyber strike against another nation. Google claims regarding attacks from China has become a major issue and it was a major talking point in Davos. Hamadoun Toure said that the risk of a cyber conflict between two nations grows every year. Now it is need of the time to sign up treaty for all countries and first of all from China. But who will define that who is right and who is wrong? Today anyone can obtain any kind of domain name and can host it anywhere that may be accessible from any other corner of the world. Similarly Internet is accessible to every one. China has decline the google claim that they are not involved in such kind of attack on Google. Well, but China has to take care about the domain registrations with .cn ccTLD and all Data Centers of the country. China and Google is the first case but I would like to recommend to Government Authorities, ICT Policy makers/implementers, and Stakeholders of each country to STOP issuance of new domain names (registrations) with their ccTLD name space and hosting-services from their data-centers to non-citizens immediately. Second step is to re-evaluate the existing domain names & hosting and formulate a methodology to constantly monitoring and record the internet traffic to and from existing ccTLD domain names (hosted inland). These actions will prevent misuse of ccTLD name space and protect the nations pulling into the cyber war. If they found any misuse or moderate traffic from a domain, immediately the information has to be passed to the UN communications and technology agency. These steps may be very helpful to create confidence between nations and will keep building up the trust on One World, One Internet, Everyone Connected. The trust between nations is very much necessary for neutrality and openness of the Internet and especially for the future Layers of new Localized Global Layer of the Linguistic Internet.   [Imran Ahmed Shah] Advisor to   Urdu Internet Council   Group Leader of   WebSphere User Group of Pakistan   Pakistan Tivoli User Group   Pakisan Rational User Group   ICANNian since Oct-2009 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 03:07:07 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:37:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello ( I will make more comments after I find the text of this speech at Davos. But for now, there are a few comments inline.) On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > *How to Prevent Cyber War* > > Experts think that the warning from Secretary General of UN communications > and technology agency International Telecommunications Union, Mr Hamadoun > Toure at World Economic Forum can prevent Cyber War between different > nations. He proposed a treaty in which countries would engage not to make > the first cyber strike against another nation. > No country that indulges in Cyber War declares a war and wages it in a manner akin to how it happens in the real world. Cyber attacks are covert attacks, not transparent attacks. > Google claims regarding attacks from China has become a major issue and it > was a major talking point in Davos. Hamadoun Toure said that the risk of a > cyber conflict between two nations grows every year. > > Now it is need of the time to sign up treaty for all countries and first of > all from China. But who will define that who is right and who is wrong? > Today anyone can obtain any kind of domain name and can host it anywhere > that may be accessible from any other corner of the world. > The subtle message of the Cyber Treaty proposal is to bring in a system whereby all Internet traffic would be traced back to the user. > Similarly Internet is accessible to every one. > But this would actually take shape to make the Internet inaccessible to the citizens of control regimes. > China has decline the google claim that they are not involved in such kind > of attack on Google. Well, but China has to take care about the domain > registrations with .cn ccTLD and all Data Centers of the country. > > China and Google is the first case but *I would like to recommend to > Government Authorities, ICT Policy makers/implementers, and Stakeholders of > each country* *to STOP issuance of new domain names (registrations) with > their ccTLD name space and hosting-services from their data-centers to > non-citizens immediately. Second step is to re-evaluate the existing domain > names & hosting and formulate a methodology to constantly monitoring and > record the internet traffic to and from existing ccTLD domain names (hosted > inland).* > Brilliant. Inventive. Genius. These proposals make ccTLD space geographically confined. And would make Internet almost indistinguishable from Telephones. > These actions will prevent misuse of ccTLD name space and protect the > nations pulling into the cyber war. If they found any misuse or moderate > traffic from a domain, immediately the information has to be passed to the > UN communications and technology agency. > > These steps may be very helpful to create confidence between nations and > will keep building up the trust on One World, One Internet, Everyone > Connected. > These steps would be very helpful to shatter the concept of One World, One Internet and ensure that not everyone is connected. The trust between nations is very much necessary for neutrality and openness > of the Internet > Neutrality and Openness would be gone. > and especially for the future Layers of new Localized Global Layer of the > Linguistic Internet. > Localized Global ??? This Oxymoron shows. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > [Imran Ahmed Shah] > > Advisor to > > Urdu Internet Council > > > > Group Leader of > > WebSphere User Group of Pakistan > > Pakistan Tivoli User Group > > Pakisan Rational User Group > > > > ICANNian since Oct-2009 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 03:12:52 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:12:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> Message-ID: Hi Siva, On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:18 PM > > Here is a suggestion.  Why don't we pitch instead of a "Right to Internet > Development", which would be the right to develop Internet policy and > standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion, > independent from commercial and governmental interests. > > McTim > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ian Peter wrote: >> And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development >> agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights discussions >> which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might >> achieve this I would be interested. > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:18 AM, michael gurstein wrote: >> >> Colleagues, >> >>        First I don't see in the current formulation any real reference to >> "development" > > >> >> the notion of a "Right to Internet development" is, >> --- rather too narrow and in a sense group >> specific >> MBG > > > "Right to Internet Development" or the 'right to develop Internet Policy' is > something that we already have. We have the ability, but do we have the "right"? Things like the ITU sponsored treaty and the Microsoft IDL may threaten this ability. I suggest we assert a "right" to enshrine the status quo. If a cyber war treaty written/overseen by the ITU mandated that only states could formulate IP address policy, then our "right" to participate in these policy discussions would be curtailed, no? I know it might be a far-fetched example, but no more far-fetched than some I have heard on this list ;-) The Internet Governance process is a > mutli-stakeholder, participative process already; at the IGF, unlike in any > other forum, the Civil Society equally participates in the policy making > process, at least in the first step of it. yes, IG is a mutli-stakeholder, participative process already. I dispute the notion that the IGF is an IG policy making body, and I also dispute the notion that it is the only forum that has mutli-stakeholder, participative processes already. > > So, why do we have to proclaim 'Right to develop Internet Policy' as a > right, when participation is already a happening process? Why discuss and > demand what is already given? Capacity building mostly. Last weeks discussion re: the US DoD IPv6 allocations show us that even amongst those with some clue, we still have a long way to go to educate folk at the IGF about how IG is actually done. I suspect that having a main theme on this topic would educate many. -- 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 ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 2 04:01:43 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 01:01:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Your comments are very important to me because of hidden criticism in it. I would like to mention only little points. if the traffic and accessibility of the internet is traceable by monitoring and controlled with existing policies why still everyone is facing spam and hacking attacks? Why cyber attacks happens? How the viruses are being spread globally. Can you assure that every one sitting behind a domain name and accessing Internet has only good intentions and is following good ethics. My suggestion is to create a trustable internet highway where everyone can ensure that space is not going to be utilized with any bad intentions. You can only guarantee to others if you can assure a confidence level to yourself. Otherwise your enemies can use your own space to attack just to pull you in the Cyber War. Localized Global Internet is not a contradiction of two terms but it mean is the new IDN Layer of Internet with Domain Names of Local Languages and are accessible on global level. Imran ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Imran Ahmed Shah Cc: Ginger Paque ; Jeremy Malcolm ; Imran ICANNians.com Sent: Tue, 2 February, 2010 13:07:07 Subject: Re: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War Hello ( I will make more comments after I find the text of this speech at Davos. But for now, there are a few comments inline.) On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: How to Prevent Cyber War >Experts think that the warning from Secretary General of UN communications and technology agency International Telecommunications Union, Mr Hamadoun Toure at World Economic Forum can prevent Cyber War between different nations. He proposed a treaty in which countries would engage not to make the first cyber strike against another nation. No country that indulges in Cyber War declares a war and wages it in a manner akin to how it happens in the real world. Cyber attacks are covert attacks, not transparent attacks.   Google claims regarding attacks from China has become a major issue and it was a major talking point in Davos. Hamadoun Toure said that the risk of a cyber conflict between two nations grows every year. >Now it is need of the time to sign up treaty for all countries and first of all from China. But who will define that who is right and who is wrong? Today anyone can obtain any kind of domain name and can host it anywhere that may be accessible from any other corner of the world. The subtle message of the Cyber Treaty proposal is to bring in a system whereby all Internet traffic would be traced back to the user.   Similarly Internet is accessible to every one. > But this would actually take shape to make the Internet inaccessible to the citizens of control regimes.    China has decline the google claim that they are not involved in such kind of attack on Google. Well, but China has to take care about the domain registrations with .cn ccTLD and all Data Centers of the country. >China and Google is the first case but I would like to recommend to Government Authorities, ICT Policy makers/implementers, and Stakeholders of each country to STOP issuance of new domain names (registrations) with their ccTLD name space and hosting-services from their data-centers to non-citizens immediately. Second step is to re-evaluate the existing domain names & hosting and formulate a methodology to constantly monitoring and record the internet traffic to and from existing ccTLD domain names (hosted inland). Brilliant. Inventive. Genius. These proposals make ccTLD space geographically confined. And would make Internet almost indistinguishable from Telephones.   These actions will prevent misuse of ccTLD name space and protect the nations pulling into the cyber war. If they found any misuse or moderate traffic from a domain, immediately the information has to be passed to the UN communications and technology agency. >These steps may be very helpful to create confidence between nations and will keep building up the trust on One World, One Internet, Everyone Connected. These steps would be very helpful to shatter the concept of One World, One Internet and ensure that not everyone is connected. The trust between nations is very much necessary for neutrality and openness of the Internet Neutrality and Openness would be gone.   and especially for the future Layers of new Localized Global Layer of the Linguistic Internet. Localized Global ???  This Oxymoron shows. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy     >[Imran Ahmed Shah] >Advisor to >  Urdu Internet Council >  >Group Leader of >  WebSphere User Group of Pakistan >  Pakistan Tivoli User Group >  Pakisan Rational User Group >  >ICANNian since Oct-2009 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Tue Feb 2 04:28:38 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 10:28:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B67F046.6020308@gih.com> Imran, your proposal is filled with good intentions, but would only work if all countries around the world ensured freedom of speech, Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights Alas this is not so. Are you willing to put your freedom of speech at risk? 1. Your proposed system mentions utilisation of the Internet "with bad intentions" opens the door to interpretation of what "bad intentions" are. Do I have "bad intention" when I reply to your email? Do you have "bad intention" when you support the proposal below? Neither you nor I know, and I certainly would not leave it to a country's political system to tell me or you that we have "bad intentions". 2. The ITU's recommendations are a straw-man. They piggy-back on popular criticism of the Internet, and have no underlying rationale whatsoever. Country level treaties about Cyber attacks are as useless as the paper they would be printed on because for a concerted Cyber attack, you need one computer - and the attacker, if we were good enough at programming, could be you or me. Treaty or no treaty, we could inflict as much damage as anyone else out there. I am yet to read an Internet-related proposal from the ITU that makes sense and that shows they understand how modern telecommunications work. It is sad, really, since I have worked on several X-series standards in the late 80s/early 90s (red book, blue book, yellow book etc.) and there were a lot of very talented people within its ranks (and it was called CCITT) - all retired now. Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html Le 02/02/2010 10:01, Imran Ahmed Shah a écrit : > > Dear Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Your comments are very important to me because of hidden criticism in it. > > I would like to mention only little points. if the traffic and > accessibility of the internet is traceable by monitoring and > controlled with existing policies why still everyone is facing spam > and hacking attacks? Why cyber attacks happens? How the viruses are > being spread globally. Can you assure that every one sitting behind a > domain name and accessing Internet has only good intentions and is > following good ethics. > > My suggestion is to create a trustable internet highway where everyone > can ensure that space is not going to be utilized with any bad > intentions. You can only guarantee to others if you can assure a > confidence level to yourself. Otherwise your enemies can use your own > space to attack just to pull you in the Cyber War. > > Localized Global Internet is not a contradiction of two terms but it > mean is the new IDN Layer of Internet with Domain Names of Local > Languages and are accessible on global level. > > Imran > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Imran Ahmed Shah > *Cc:* Ginger Paque ; Jeremy Malcolm > ; Imran ICANNians.com > *Sent:* Tue, 2 February, 2010 13:07:07 > *Subject:* Re: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War > > Hello > > ( I will make more comments after I find the text of this speech at > Davos. But for now, there are a few comments inline.) > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah > wrote: > > *How to Prevent Cyber War* > > Experts think that the warning from Secretary General of UN > communications and technology agency International > Telecommunications Union, Mr Hamadoun Toure at World Economic > Forum can prevent Cyber War between different nations. He proposed > a treaty in which countries would engage not to make the first > cyber strike against another nation. > > No country that indulges in Cyber War declares a war and wages it in a > manner akin to how it happens in the real world. Cyber attacks are > covert attacks, not transparent attacks. > > Google claims regarding attacks from China has become a major > issue and it was a major talking point in Davos. Hamadoun Toure > said that the risk of a cyber conflict between two nations grows > every year. > > Now it is need of the time to sign up treaty for all countries and > first of all from China. But who will define that who is right and > who is wrong? Today anyone can obtain any kind of domain name and > can host it anywhere that may be accessible from any other corner > of the world. > > The subtle message of the Cyber Treaty proposal is to bring in a > system whereby all Internet traffic would be traced back to the user. > > Similarly Internet is accessible to every one. > > > But this would actually take shape to make the Internet inaccessible > to the citizens of control regimes. > > China has decline the google claim that they are not involved in > such kind of attack on Google. Well, but China has to take care > about the domain registrations with .cn ccTLD and all Data Centers > of the country. > > China and Google is the first case but /I would like to recommend > to Government Authorities, ICT Policy makers/implementers, and > Stakeholders of each country/ _to STOP issuance of new domain > names (registrations) with their ccTLD name space and > hosting-services from their data-centers to non-citizens > immediately. Second step is to re-evaluate the existing domain > names & hosting and formulate a methodology to constantly > monitoring and record the internet traffic to and from existing > ccTLD domain names (hosted inland)._ > > > Brilliant. Inventive. Genius. These proposals make ccTLD space > geographically confined. And would make Internet almost > indistinguishable from Telephones. > > These actions will prevent misuse of ccTLD name space and protect > the nations pulling into the cyber war. If they found any misuse > or moderate traffic from a domain, immediately the information has > to be passed to the UN communications and technology agency. > > These steps may be very helpful to create confidence between > nations and will keep building up the trust on One World, One > Internet, Everyone Connected. > > > These steps would be very helpful to shatter the concept of One World, > One Internet and ensure that not everyone is connected. > > The trust between nations is very much necessary for neutrality > and openness of the Internet > > Neutrality and Openness would be gone. > > and especially for the future Layers of new Localized Global Layer > of the Linguistic Internet. > > Localized Global ??? This Oxymoron shows. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > [Imran Ahmed Shah] > > Advisor to > > Urdu Internet Council > > Group Leader of > > WebSphere User Group of Pakistan > > Pakistan Tivoli User Group > > Pakisan Rational User Group > > ICANNian since Oct-2009 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 04:32:42 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 12:32:42 +0300 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:48 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Colleagues, > > I've been re-reading the below and I guess I'm uneasy with this (and with my > earlier "endorsement") as it is now presented. > > I'm uneasy for a couple of reasons: >        First I don't see in the current formulation any real reference to > "development" as I normally use the term i.e. referring to economic and > social "development" rather than software "development"... I thought > initially there might be some way of linking the two conceptually in this > formulation but now looking at the formulation below I'm not so sure While true that "Given that Internet development and innovation contributes significantly to economic and social development" is the only linkage in the text, I would be happy to add further detail if you have suggestions. The other development aspect of this is what we have been calling Internet Governance for Development. If we really are serious about this, then we need to get more people who are in desperate need of development involved in actual Internet Governance. You are more versed in ICT4D than I, so please add what you think is missing. From my perspective, I see lots of examples of ICTs aiding (or actually creating) development. Two local examples, mobile money transfer services banking the unbanked, and http://www.ushahidi.com/work Who I ammeeting later today). You probably know many more from your telecentre work. However software (we could work in the right to open source if you wish) is only a small fraction of what I am on about in re: Right to Internet Development. In your work on telecentres, I imagine every single one uses the TCP/IP suite. They uses IP addresses, either public or private, they use DNS and BGP (or their upstream does). These are developed by folk all over the world in a bottom up, transparent, open and consensus driven approach. I doubt many of the folk who use the telecentres actually participate in these processes. Articulating a right to do so might be useful in bringing more people into these processes. That's what I this proposed theme is about. > >        Second, as I've said in the past, I'm not very well versed in the > use of the "Rights" concepts in these contexts but again on the face of it > it now seems to me that the notion of a "Right to Internet development" is, > as it is being presented below, rather too narrow and in a sense group > specific (i.e. a right for Internet software developers to do what they do) > and in that sense represents a debasing of the overall concept of "Rights". See above, and my reply to Siva. I merely want to expand the bottom of the bottomupness and enshrine what we have now, while educating IGFers on this. This does apply to everyone, not just coders. > In my naïve view the invocation of the "Rights" formulations should probably > be reserved for rather more basic and inclusive areas of application. If the > notion being presented here is something on the order of a "Right to a free > and open Internet" then I think it should probably be stated in some sort of > similarly general terms i.e. terms that don't on the face of it seem simply > to empower those with the technical capability to contribute to the > (software) development of the Net. it's meant to empower those at the IGF, not merely technically skilled folk. Some of the processes involve technical skills, but many are largely adminstrative processes. Look at the most active ICANNers on this list, few are technically skilled. I'd be happy to call it the "Right to Open Internet Development" if that is better for you. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > But again, perhaps I've misread the formulation and if so I would ask for > some additional clarification (and perhaps elaboration or clarification of > the proposed position statement). > > Best to all, > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:23 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > > All > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: >> >> and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF >> Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the >> point not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present >> meeting will decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about >> these key themes for each IGF. >> >> I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet' >> as a theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored >> workshop in IGF Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken >> forward in a main session >> now) >> >> Ginger will be at the open consultation meeting and can deliver an >> oral statement on themes for the Vilnius meeting, separately to our >> statement looking back at Sharm el Sheikh.  It is entirely appropriate >> to split up our statements like this, and there is precedent for it. >> So, let's get to work on such a statement now. > > Done (rewritten our statement from pre-Egypt: > > IGC Statement on Themes for IGF 2010 > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports the "Right to > Internet Development" as a major theme for IGF-5 in Vilnius. This should > lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of Principles and Best Practices in relation to Internet > policy development, and how they relate to pre-existing conditions in > Internet Governance. It also includes a space for discussions about the > responsibilities of all parties. > > This concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness, > transparency and bottom up Internet policy and standards development. This > framework will continue to emphasize the significant theme of the need to > maintain interoperability and openness to ensure the continued availability > of the Internet ‘commons’, while adding the important issues of devices, > content and applications of their choice. In keeping with current national > and international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects > of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > Net neutrality can often mean different things to different people. The IGC > feels that at a minimum, net neutrality discussions in the IGF should > recognize the principle of nondiscrimination of Internet traffic based on > the ownership, source, destination, port or protocol, keeping in mind that > providers must actively manage their networks in the face of growing threats > from SPAM, DDOS attacks and other forms of abuse. this principle must apply > to both wireless and wireline broadband infrastructure. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that govern Internet policy > making. > > Given that Internet development and innovation contributes significantly to > economic and social development, the IGC strongly supports the rights of > people everywhere to contribute to the continued eveolution of the Internet > and its policy and standards making bodies. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder  process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2010 in Latvia as a proven method to include new voices. Best Practices in > this area would be a sub-theme of the Right to Internet Development. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From edmanix at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 05:01:54 2010 From: edmanix at gmail.com (Emmanuel Edet) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:01:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I find the comments of Mr Hamadoun Toure very interesting. I come from a legal background but I think his comments are based on an inaccurate perception of what cyberspace is. Perhaps he is more comfortable with switched networks which are located in specific geographical points. Wikipedia gives a brief definition of Cyberspace. Cyberspace is "the global domain of electromagnetics as accessed and exploited through electronic technology and the modulation of electromagnetic energy to achieve a wide range of communication and control system capabilities". Cyberspace is in itself a global turf there is no way we can create rules and restrictions on cyberspace the way we do on physical space. With this understanding, it would be difficult to use a terrestrial treaty to prevent attacks on cyberspace. In cyberspace, countries, individuals and even organisations like Google have equal status. None is a citizen of the other and thus subject to territorial rules and regulations. So what if an individual attacks and brings down a Government, would it be cyberwar or cybercrime? Cyberspace is not a connection of wires across territories, it is an extension of a global space that needs a different approach to policing and regulations not just extending terrestrial laws and conventions. By the way on cctlds what would happen to those who come from territories fighting for self determination? And refuse to be associated with cctlds? On 2/2/10, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Dear Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Your comments are very important to me because of hidden criticism in it. > I would like to mention only little points. if the traffic and accessibility > of the internet is traceable by monitoring and controlled with existing > policies why still everyone is facing spam and hacking attacks? Why cyber > attacks happens? How the viruses are being spread globally. Can you assure > that every one sitting behind a domain name and accessing Internet has only > good intentions and is following good ethics. > My suggestion is to create a trustable internet highway where everyone can > ensure that space is not going to be utilized with any bad intentions. You > can only guarantee to others if you can assure a confidence level to > yourself. Otherwise your enemies can use your own space to attack just to > pull you in the Cyber War. > Localized Global Internet is not a contradiction of two terms but it mean is > the new IDN Layer of Internet with Domain Names of Local Languages and are > accessible on global level. > Imran > ________________________________ > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Imran Ahmed Shah > Cc: Ginger Paque ; Jeremy Malcolm ; > Imran ICANNians.com > Sent: Tue, 2 February, 2010 13:07:07 > Subject: Re: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War > > Hello > > ( I will make more comments after I find the text of this speech at Davos. > But for now, there are a few comments inline.) > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > > How to Prevent Cyber War >>Experts think that the warning from Secretary General of UN communications >> and technology agency International Telecommunications Union, Mr Hamadoun >> Toure at World Economic Forum can prevent Cyber War between different >> nations. He proposed a treaty in which countries would engage not to make >> the first cyber strike against another nation. > No country that indulges in Cyber War declares a war and wages it in a > manner akin to how it happens in the real world. Cyber attacks are covert > attacks, not transparent attacks. > > > Google claims regarding attacks from China has become a major issue and it > was a major talking point in Davos. Hamadoun Toure said that the risk of a > cyber conflict between two nations grows every year. >>Now it is need of the time to sign up treaty for all countries and first of >> all from China. But who will define that who is right and who is wrong? >> Today anyone can obtain any kind of domain name and can host it anywhere >> that may be accessible from any other corner of the world. > The subtle message of the Cyber Treaty proposal is to bring in a system > whereby all Internet traffic would be traced back to the user. > > Similarly Internet is accessible to every one. >> > > But this would actually take shape to make the Internet inaccessible to the > citizens of control regimes. > > > > China has decline the google claim that they are not involved in such kind > of attack on Google. Well, but China has to take care about the domain > registrations with .cn ccTLD and all Data Centers of the country. >>China and Google is the first case but I would like to recommend to >> Government Authorities, ICT Policy makers/implementers, and Stakeholders >> of each country to STOP issuance of new domain names (registrations) with >> their ccTLD name space and hosting-services from their data-centers to >> non-citizens immediately. Second step is to re-evaluate the existing >> domain names & hosting and formulate a methodology to constantly >> monitoring and record the internet traffic to and from existing ccTLD >> domain names (hosted inland). > > Brilliant. Inventive. Genius. These proposals make ccTLD space > geographically confined. And would make Internet almost indistinguishable > from Telephones. > > These actions will prevent misuse of ccTLD name space and protect the > nations pulling into the cyber war. If they found any misuse or moderate > traffic from a domain, immediately the information has to be passed to the > UN communications and technology agency. >>These steps may be very helpful to create confidence between nations and >> will keep building up the trust on One World, One Internet, Everyone >> Connected. > > These steps would be very helpful to shatter the concept of One World, One > Internet and ensure that not everyone is connected. > > > The trust between nations is very much necessary for neutrality and openness > of the Internet > Neutrality and Openness would be gone. > > and especially for the future Layers of new Localized Global Layer of the > Linguistic Internet. > Localized Global ???  This Oxymoron shows. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > >>[Imran Ahmed Shah] >>Advisor to >>  Urdu Internet Council >> >>Group Leader of >>  WebSphere User Group of Pakistan >>  Pakistan Tivoli User Group >>  Pakisan Rational User Group >> >>ICANNian since Oct-2009 >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > -- emmanuel Happiness is good health and a bad memory." - Ingrid Bergman (1917-1982) http://ictlegal.blogspot.com/ (Professional)http://eteakamba.blogspot.com/ (Personal) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 2 05:02:54 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 13:02:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Imran, I agree with Olivier and Siva. This is an idea that is in driect opposition to our notions of a Free and Open Internet. On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Today anyone can obtain any kind of domain name and can host it anywhere > that may be accessible from any other corner of the world. And that is how it should remain. Similarly > Internet is accessible to every one. Well, it should be, but many billions do not have access. In some countries, you can be denied access to the Internet as well. China has decline the google claim that > they are not involved in such kind of attack on Google. Well, but China has > to take care about the domain registrations with .cn ccTLD and all Data > Centers of the country. You don't need to own a domain name to launch a cyber attack. > > China and Google is the first case but I would like to recommend to > Government Authorities, ICT Policy makers/implementers, and Stakeholders of > each country to STOP issuance of new domain names (registrations) with their > ccTLD name space and hosting-services from their data-centers to > non-citizens immediately. I am an US citizen, living in Kenya. Why would you restrict my ability (right) to launch a business or hobby website in the .ke namespace. In Kenya, hosting is relatively expensive, so people host in the USA. Why make Africans spend more money than they need to to host a domain? Second step is to re-evaluate the existing domain > names & hosting and formulate a methodology to constantly monitoring and > record the internet traffic to and from existing ccTLD domain names (hosted > inland). These actions will prevent misuse of ccTLD name space and protect > the nations pulling into the cyber war. No, they won't. See above. Neither a web host nor a domain name is needed to launch a cyber attack. If they found any misuse or moderate > traffic from a domain, immediately the information has to be passed to the > UN communications and technology agency. I'm all in favor of listing hosts who spew malware, but what could the ITU do about it? They have no powers of enforcement, nor should they. -- 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 gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Tue Feb 2 06:09:39 2010 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:09:39 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Deadline approaches for votes in We Media game Changer Message-ID: <34832.28827.qm@web27804.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Friends and colleagues, The deadline to vote finalists in We media 2010 Game Changer awards is tomorrow 3 Feb. Thanks to everyone who voted and kindly ask all who did not yet to vote before 11:59 pm EST on Wednesday, February 3, 2010.  link : WeMedia's 2010 Game Changer Awards. Name: Jean-Yves Gatete  http://wemedia.com/awards/2010-community-choice-finalists/   kind regards Jean-Yves Gatete  *Burundian Youth for Peacebuilding &  Young refugees Integration,BYPRI  *UN Secretariat of IGF-MAG member *Editor-in-Chief ,Geneva International Models United Nations 2010 *Tel 0025779223694-79954458 *Fax +25722250701 *1518 Bujumbura -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Tue Feb 2 06:32:53 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 03:32:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <618863.34880.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks Dear Oliver for your comments, Dear McTim, do you really agree on the opinion against the rights of a country to protect them and to be aware of the threats which may be used against them just by utilizing their ccTLD name space or the internet from their region? I am in favor of providing Internet facility but I said that country should keep monitoring mass traffic source.   I do not think so; I am forced to think that my proposal is totally misspelled. (My English was not so bad, however if it is going to be taken in other meaning, it is necessary to define that are I am afraid of the possible cyber war). I understand that country can’t be responsible for any kind of activity from the individuals but signing a treaty or memorandum of article which may assure that the country will not going to start the war from his end. It will assure to the other countries that political or geographical governments will not involved in a mass cyber attack trough internet. This is in the benefit of the health of the internet. ________________________________ From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tue, 2 February, 2010 15:02:54 Subject: Re: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War Imran, I agree with Olivier and Siva.  This is an idea that is in driect opposition to our notions of a Free and Open Internet. On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Today anyone can obtain any kind of domain name and can host it anywhere > that may be accessible from any other corner of the world. And that is how it should remain. Similarly > Internet is accessible to every one. Well, it should be, but many billions do not have access.  In some countries, you can be denied access to the Internet as well. China has decline the google claim that > they are not involved in such kind of attack on Google. Well, but China has > to take care about the domain registrations with .cn ccTLD and all Data > Centers of the country. You don't need to own a domain name to launch a cyber attack. > > China and Google is the first case but I would like to recommend to > Government Authorities, ICT Policy makers/implementers, and Stakeholders of > each country to STOP issuance of new domain names (registrations) with their > ccTLD name space and hosting-services from their data-centers to > non-citizens immediately. I am an US citizen, living in Kenya. Why would you restrict my ability (right) to launch a business or hobby website in the .ke namespace. In Kenya, hosting is relatively expensive, so people host in the USA. Why make Africans spend more money than they need to to host a domain? Second step is to re-evaluate the existing domain > names & hosting and formulate a methodology to constantly monitoring and > record the internet traffic to and from existing ccTLD domain names (hosted > inland). These actions will prevent misuse of ccTLD name space and protect > the nations pulling into the cyber war. No, they won't.  See above.  Neither a web host nor a domain name is needed to launch a cyber attack. If they found any misuse or moderate > traffic from a domain, immediately the information has to be passed to the > UN communications and technology agency. I'm all in favor of listing hosts who spew malware, but what could the ITU do about it?  They have no powers of enforcement, nor should they. -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Tue Feb 2 06:38:58 2010 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 11:38:58 -0000 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Hi all Apologies for coming to the conversation late, but I just wanted to say that I'm a little uncomfortable with restricting ourselves to the "right to (open) internet development" too. I think that it's a key issue and that participation in internet governance and development is really important. But I think that there are a broader range of human rights and development issues that aren't included in this framing. Issues of participation are huge, and I think could be treated as a category in their own right, or within the human rights and development framing. But all human rights and development issues can't necessarily be encompassed within "participation". As the calls for including "rights and principles" as a main theme have been rejected in the past for being too vague, I think we need to be really careful with our formulation and really clear on what we're talking about. With rights and development issues having been discussed extensively in IGF workshops, I think there's a strong argument to be made for their "promotion" in the IGF agenda. But we have still yet to make that argument clearly, especially regarding rights. I'm really interested in joining our calls for consideration of human rights and development dimensions together. For me, they are indivisible from each other...the realisation of human rights is part of "development", social, economic and cultural human rights are indivisible from civil and political rights, and human rights can be used as a tool to fight for development. However, the point has been made many times in our discussions that we should be strategic in what we're calling for. Many stakeholders will push against having sessions on human rights, but may be more open to talking about development. Should we therefore be calling for sessions on development, and in practice use them to talk about human rights? Or is it important in moral and symbolic terms to continue to push explicitly for human rights to be included? How do we strike the balance between being strategic and practical, and standing for what we believe in? All the best, Lisa -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: 02 February 2010 09:33 To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:48 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Colleagues, > > I've been re-reading the below and I guess I'm uneasy with this (and with my > earlier "endorsement") as it is now presented. > > I'm uneasy for a couple of reasons: >        First I don't see in the current formulation any real reference to > "development" as I normally use the term i.e. referring to economic and > social "development" rather than software "development"... I thought > initially there might be some way of linking the two conceptually in this > formulation but now looking at the formulation below I'm not so sure While true that "Given that Internet development and innovation contributes significantly to economic and social development" is the only linkage in the text, I would be happy to add further detail if you have suggestions. The other development aspect of this is what we have been calling Internet Governance for Development. If we really are serious about this, then we need to get more people who are in desperate need of development involved in actual Internet Governance. You are more versed in ICT4D than I, so please add what you think is missing. From my perspective, I see lots of examples of ICTs aiding (or actually creating) development. Two local examples, mobile money transfer services banking the unbanked, and http://www.ushahidi.com/work Who I ammeeting later today). You probably know many more from your telecentre work. However software (we could work in the right to open source if you wish) is only a small fraction of what I am on about in re: Right to Internet Development. In your work on telecentres, I imagine every single one uses the TCP/IP suite. They uses IP addresses, either public or private, they use DNS and BGP (or their upstream does). These are developed by folk all over the world in a bottom up, transparent, open and consensus driven approach. I doubt many of the folk who use the telecentres actually participate in these processes. Articulating a right to do so might be useful in bringing more people into these processes. That's what I this proposed theme is about. > >        Second, as I've said in the past, I'm not very well versed in the > use of the "Rights" concepts in these contexts but again on the face of it > it now seems to me that the notion of a "Right to Internet development" is, > as it is being presented below, rather too narrow and in a sense group > specific (i.e. a right for Internet software developers to do what they do) > and in that sense represents a debasing of the overall concept of "Rights". See above, and my reply to Siva. I merely want to expand the bottom of the bottomupness and enshrine what we have now, while educating IGFers on this. This does apply to everyone, not just coders. > In my naïve view the invocation of the "Rights" formulations should probably > be reserved for rather more basic and inclusive areas of application. If the > notion being presented here is something on the order of a "Right to a free > and open Internet" then I think it should probably be stated in some sort of > similarly general terms i.e. terms that don't on the face of it seem simply > to empower those with the technical capability to contribute to the > (software) development of the Net. it's meant to empower those at the IGF, not merely technically skilled folk. Some of the processes involve technical skills, but many are largely adminstrative processes. Look at the most active ICANNers on this list, few are technically skilled. I'd be happy to call it the "Right to Open Internet Development" if that is better for you. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > But again, perhaps I've misread the formulation and if so I would ask for > some additional clarification (and perhaps elaboration or clarification of > the proposed position statement). > > Best to all, > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:23 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > > All > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: >> >> and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF >> Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the >> point not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present >> meeting will decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about >> these key themes for each IGF. >> >> I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet' >> as a theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored >> workshop in IGF Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken >> forward in a main session >> now) >> >> Ginger will be at the open consultation meeting and can deliver an >> oral statement on themes for the Vilnius meeting, separately to our >> statement looking back at Sharm el Sheikh.  It is entirely appropriate >> to split up our statements like this, and there is precedent for it. >> So, let's get to work on such a statement now. > > Done (rewritten our statement from pre-Egypt: > > IGC Statement on Themes for IGF 2010 > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports the "Right to > Internet Development" as a major theme for IGF-5 in Vilnius. This should > lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of Principles and Best Practices in relation to Internet > policy development, and how they relate to pre-existing conditions in > Internet Governance. It also includes a space for discussions about the > responsibilities of all parties. > > This concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of openness, > transparency and bottom up Internet policy and standards development. This > framework will continue to emphasize the significant theme of the need to > maintain interoperability and openness to ensure the continued availability > of the Internet 'commons', while adding the important issues of devices, > content and applications of their choice. In keeping with current national > and international debates regarding an "open Internet" and relevant aspects > of the often confusing network neutrality discussions. > > Net neutrality can often mean different things to different people. The IGC > feels that at a minimum, net neutrality discussions in the IGF should > recognize the principle of nondiscrimination of Internet traffic based on > the ownership, source, destination, port or protocol, keeping in mind that > providers must actively manage their networks in the face of growing threats > from SPAM, DDOS attacks and other forms of abuse. this principle must apply > to both wireless and wireline broadband infrastructure. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. It > allows for open examination of the principles that govern Internet policy > making. > > Given that Internet development and innovation contributes significantly to > economic and social development, the IGC strongly supports the rights of > people everywhere to contribute to the continued eveolution of the Internet > and its policy and standards making bodies. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder  process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue and > expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at the IGF > 2010 in Latvia as a proven method to include new voices. Best Practices in > this area would be a sub-theme of the Right to Internet Development. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 06:44:56 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 14:44:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Lisa Horner wrote:  How do we strike the balance between being strategic and practical, and standing for what we believe in? This is my attempt at all 3. HR seems to be a nonstarter (at least it hasn't gotten anywhere in the past). It's strategic and practical in that I think that the 4th stakeholder group would probably get behind it, as well as PS and some governments. -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 08:22:09 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:22:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: McTim, Thanks very much for your detailed and very collaboratively framed reply... The area of common cause that I see between those at the grassroots concerned with using ICTs for development and those concerned with the opportunity of developing those ICTs so that they can be used by grassroots folks (and others) for development (and other) purposes is that the absence of the tools that the technology developers are developing means that the grassroots folks can't do want they want to do with the ICTs. I very much see and sympathize with the strategy you are articulating here but I unfortunately must demur to those with much more knowledge and strategic sense than I do in the "Rights" area (such as Lisa and Parminder) as to how (or if) exactly to frame the above from a "rights" perspective. Best to all, MBG -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:33 PM To: michael gurstein Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:48 AM, michael gurstein wrote: > Colleagues, > > I've been re-reading the below and I guess I'm uneasy with this (and > with my earlier "endorsement") as it is now presented. > > I'm uneasy for a couple of reasons: >        First I don't see in the current formulation any real reference > to "development" as I normally use the term i.e. referring to economic > and social "development" rather than software "development"... I > thought initially there might be some way of linking the two > conceptually in this formulation but now looking at the formulation > below I'm not so sure While true that "Given that Internet development and innovation contributes significantly to economic and social development" is the only linkage in the text, I would be happy to add further detail if you have suggestions. The other development aspect of this is what we have been calling Internet Governance for Development. If we really are serious about this, then we need to get more people who are in desperate need of development involved in actual Internet Governance. You are more versed in ICT4D than I, so please add what you think is missing. From my perspective, I see lots of examples of ICTs aiding (or actually creating) development. Two local examples, mobile money transfer services banking the unbanked, and http://www.ushahidi.com/work Who I ammeeting later today). You probably know many more from your telecentre work. However software (we could work in the right to open source if you wish) is only a small fraction of what I am on about in re: Right to Internet Development. In your work on telecentres, I imagine every single one uses the TCP/IP suite. They uses IP addresses, either public or private, they use DNS and BGP (or their upstream does). These are developed by folk all over the world in a bottom up, transparent, open and consensus driven approach. I doubt many of the folk who use the telecentres actually participate in these processes. Articulating a right to do so might be useful in bringing more people into these processes. That's what I this proposed theme is about. > >        Second, as I've said in the past, I'm not very well versed in > the use of the "Rights" concepts in these contexts but again on the > face of it it now seems to me that the notion of a "Right to Internet > development" is, as it is being presented below, rather too narrow and > in a sense group specific (i.e. a right for Internet software > developers to do what they do) and in that sense represents a debasing > of the overall concept of "Rights". See above, and my reply to Siva. I merely want to expand the bottom of the bottomupness and enshrine what we have now, while educating IGFers on this. This does apply to everyone, not just coders. > In my naïve view the invocation of the "Rights" formulations should > probably be reserved for rather more basic and inclusive areas of > application. If the notion being presented here is something on the > order of a "Right to a free and open Internet" then I think it should > probably be stated in some sort of similarly general terms i.e. terms > that don't on the face of it seem simply to empower those with the > technical capability to contribute to the > (software) development of the Net. it's meant to empower those at the IGF, not merely technically skilled folk. Some of the processes involve technical skills, but many are largely adminstrative processes. Look at the most active ICANNers on this list, few are technically skilled. I'd be happy to call it the "Right to Open Internet Development" if that is better for you. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > But again, perhaps I've misread the formulation and if so I would ask > for some additional clarification (and perhaps elaboration or > clarification of the proposed position statement). > > Best to all, > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Monday, February 01, 2010 7:23 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > > All > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: >> On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: >> >> and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF >> Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the >> point not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present >> meeting will decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about >> these key themes for each IGF. >> >> I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet' >> as a theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored >> workshop in IGF Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken >> forward in a main session >> now) >> >> Ginger will be at the open consultation meeting and can deliver an >> oral statement on themes for the Vilnius meeting, separately to our >> statement looking back at Sharm el Sheikh.  It is entirely >> appropriate to split up our statements like this, and there is >> precedent for it. So, let's get to work on such a statement now. > > Done (rewritten our statement from pre-Egypt: > > IGC Statement on Themes for IGF 2010 > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports the "Right to Internet > Development" as a major theme for IGF-5 in Vilnius. This should lead > to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the definition and > clarification of Principles and Best Practices in relation to Internet > policy development, and how they relate to pre-existing conditions in > Internet Governance. It also includes a space for discussions about > the responsibilities of all parties. > > This concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of > openness, transparency and bottom up Internet policy and standards > development. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > theme of the need to maintain interoperability and openness to ensure > the continued availability of the Internet ‘commons’, while adding the > important issues of devices, content and applications of their choice. > In keeping with current national and international debates regarding > an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > Net neutrality can often mean different things to different people. > The IGC feels that at a minimum, net neutrality discussions in the IGF > should recognize the principle of nondiscrimination of Internet > traffic based on the ownership, source, destination, port or protocol, > keeping in mind that providers must actively manage their networks in > the face of growing threats from SPAM, DDOS attacks and other forms of > abuse. this principle must apply to both wireless and wireline > broadband infrastructure. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination of the principles that govern Internet > policy making. > > Given that Internet development and innovation contributes > significantly to economic and social development, the IGC strongly > supports the rights of people everywhere to contribute to the > continued eveolution of the Internet and its policy and standards > making bodies. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder  process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue > and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at > the IGF 2010 in Latvia as a proven method to include new voices. Best > Practices in this area would be a sub-theme of the Right to Internet > Development. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Tue Feb 2 09:07:26 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 06:07:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] F.Y.I.: Pay Attention to this thread @ ALAC Message-ID: F.Y.I.: Pay Attention to this thread @ ALAC http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2010/001104.html Thread index: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2010/thread.html - Yesterday I framed Michael Gurstein's theme of "Right to Internet Development" as: 'The Power of Process to the People', which enables them to Evolve, and as a result, shape the Internet into life. "Rights" will inevitably manifest themselves to the NameSpace (Domain Name). The 'Policy' surrounding the NameSpace inevitably shape that NameSpace character. Enabling People through: 'The Power of Process to the People', should be the focus, so that when the edge of the Internet reaches Them, they have the ability* to create the Space in their Image (tradition, folklore, flavor). Net Neutrality et. al. it encompasses) is important no-doubt, but to my way of thinking, getting the tools (enabling processes) too the People, the pathways of process, the roads to progress, enabling their expression, in the NameSpce they call their own, is paramount. If we choose to Focus on the Technology, we risk loosing the opportunity to create systems that employ 'Rights' which enable people to thrive. (that is, We might as well hang it up ... Welcome to McInternet, would you like to SuperSize you order?...) If I had to choose between the iTechnology and People, I choose People. - *Ability to fulfill their lives through Rights that enable thier development (Processes). ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 2 11:49:42 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:19:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> McTim I must say that i do not see any possibility of a proposed theme on 'right to development of Internet' going anywhere in the OC and MAG. However more importantly, i really do not understand the content on this theme - and what exactly you seek to achieve? BTW, I think all these years if there is one thing I have heard you assert repeatedly it is that everyone already has an absolute right to the development of the Internet (through, what you always claim, is the absolutely open and unhindered access to bottom-up Internet policy forums you keep mentioning). So if everyone already has this right, what exactly are we seeking here? In any case, a new unclear theme can simply not become a main session theme. On the other hand, 'NN/open Internet' and 'development agenda in IG' are both now well discussed themes inside and outside the IGF, and have enough 'body' to be considered to be main session themes. Parminder McTim wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Lisa Horner wrote: > > How do we strike the balance between being strategic and practical, > and standing for what we believe in? > > This is my attempt at all 3. HR seems to be a nonstarter (at least it > hasn't gotten anywhere in the past). It's strategic and practical in > that I think that the 4th stakeholder group would probably get behind > it, as well as PS and some governments. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 13:09:06 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:39:06 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with Skype In-Reply-To: References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B686A42.4070302@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 13:17:58 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 23:17:58 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with Skype In-Reply-To: <4B686A42.4070302@gmail.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <4B686A42.4070302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71002021017vf23c99ds9b39c046f85d8439@mail.gmail.com> Je serai là mes amis! ;O) confirming! Best Fouad On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > The list for the meeting on Feb. 8th (Monday) at Les Brasseurs is below. If > you are not noted, and can join us, please let me and Bill know by private > email. If you are not on the list, and happen to be able to join us at the > last minute, please do so!!! > > Les Brasseurs has WiFi... so if anyone wants to join us on Skype, please let > me know by private email... we can ping you when we start actual > discussions. Best, gp > > Avri > Fouad > Hartmut > Ginger > Roland > Carlos Afonso > Bill Drake and Wife > Parminder > Katitza > Milton (9 pm) > Willie Currie > > > > William Drake wrote: > > We passed by the resto today and inquired, need to contact the manager when > he's in tomorrow.  Past experiences have been that when we had a group of > like 15 they gave us the whole room, but on other occasions when we had more > like 10 they had us share the room with other big groups, which made > conversation a bit more difficult.  So it would be very helpful to know for > sure how many people we will have ASAP. > Thanks, > BIll > > On Feb 1, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > William Drake said: > > Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is generally > very crowded, could be even on a Monday night.  If you're thinking people > will stand around at the bar drinking there's no problem, if you want to > have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head count and to reserve the room on > the side as in years past, if available. > So far we have 11 people confirmed for an IGC meeting on Monday evening, > February 8th at Les-Brasseurs, across Rue de Lausanne from Cornavin. > > Can anyone else join us  for this planning session?  ( OC on Tuesday morning > ) Please confirm to me by email offlist. > > Best, > gp > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and >  Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 14:14:57 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:44:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> Message-ID: Hello McTim, On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:42 PM, McTim wrote: > Hi Siva, > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: > > Hello > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2010 11:18 PM > > > > Here is a suggestion. Why don't we pitch instead of a "Right to Internet > > Development", which would be the right to develop Internet policy and > > standards in a bottom up, open, documented and transparent fashion, > > independent from commercial and governmental interests. > > > > McTim > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ian Peter > wrote: > >> And yes we should continue to support the human rights and development > >> agendas. We need to find a way to overcome the block on rights > discussions > >> which was evident last year – if anyone has suggestions on how we might > >> achieve this I would be interested. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 4:18 AM, michael gurstein > wrote: > >> > >> Colleagues, > >> > >> First I don't see in the current formulation any real reference > to > >> "development" > > > > > >> > >> the notion of a "Right to Internet development" is, > >> --- rather too narrow and in a sense group > >> specific > >> MBG > > > > > > "Right to Internet Development" or the 'right to develop Internet Policy' > is > > something that we already have. > > We have the ability, but do we have the "right"? Things like the ITU > sponsored treaty and the Microsoft IDL may threaten this ability. I > suggest we assert a "right" to enshrine the status quo. If a cyber > war treaty written/overseen by the ITU mandated that only states could > formulate IP address policy, then our "right" to participate in these > policy discussions would be curtailed, no? > > It looks like a comical situation to think of an ITU mandated policy process. ITU's concerns are business profits. What the ITU really wants to do is to mine profits out of the Internet, so the ITU tries every trick to use its ill-fitting status as a UN Agency to steer policy makers towards an Internet Policy with a certain design that would open up doors wide for ITU member Telecoms. These telecom business designs are wrapped up and misleadingly presented to the world as nobler concerns for Global Security. Until Governments understand how they are played by the ITU, the freedom of the Internet will remain threatened. (The ITU shouldn't be allowed to interject itself in Internet Governance as a 'UN Agency' , but instead could be offered seats within the business quadrant of the Internet Governance Forum.) Our central concern is to ensure that the Internet remains free and open. Internet Policy has to evolve by a participative process. We need to do all that we can to ensure our participation. If that can only happen by asserting that we have a 'right' to participate, I am with you on this. But would this be the most effective approach? Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > I know it might be a far-fetched example, but no more far-fetched than > some I have heard on this list ;-) > > The Internet Governance process is a > > mutli-stakeholder, participative process already; at the IGF, unlike in > any > > other forum, the Civil Society equally participates in the policy making > > process, at least in the first step of it. > > yes, IG is a mutli-stakeholder, participative process already. > > I dispute the notion that the IGF is an IG policy making body, and I > also dispute the notion that it is the only forum that has > mutli-stakeholder, participative processes already. > > > > > So, why do we have to proclaim 'Right to develop Internet Policy' as a > > right, when participation is already a happening process? Why discuss and > > demand what is already given? > > Capacity building mostly. Last weeks discussion re: the US DoD IPv6 > allocations show us that even amongst those with some clue, we still > have a long way to go to educate folk at the IGF about how IG is > actually done. I suspect that having a main theme on this topic would > educate many. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 14:36:29 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 01:06:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: <618863.34880.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <618863.34880.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Imran Ahmed Shah On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: I said that country should keep monitoring mass traffic source. > > > > I am afraid of the possible cyber war). > You are afraid of the 'possible' cyber war, many others from Government or business are afraid of various types of Cyber attacks, the common man is worried about his safety and his children's safely online. There is some basis for all these concerns, but we are constantly subjected to propaganda that exaggerates these threats to make us far more afraid of these threats than we need to be. But your idea of "monitoring mass traffic source" and policing the Internet would bring in untold harm. Experts discussed some of the dangers of disproportionate controls at a panel discussion at the IGF in Egypt: "*The anti terrorist legislations which we have seen over the last few years are under the presumption that you have to give away freedom in order to preserve security. We have given away quite a good part of our freedom but I am not sure of its effect on security. The hypothesis is that there is problem of proportionality between between the measures of restriction and the gains on security due to the measures*." -Prof Dr.Wolfgang Benedek, Director of the Institute of International Law and International Relations of the University of Graz, Austria and of the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Graz (ETC) "*Security has become such a means to an end, security has become such an industry that it is almost self fulfilling*" - Prof. Simon Davies, Founder and Director, Privacy International and visiting Senior Fellow, London School of Economics " *We have entered an era where national security is the pass to do anything, in a way that it was when there was a war on drugs was ten years ago that you can use that phrase to justify anything...By giving away our privacy in some misguided attempts to make us secure against terrorism, we are actually reducing our security against governments, against multi national corporations, against those who are in powe*r". -Bruce Schneier, "Security Guru" and Internationally renowned security technologist and Writer. "*In china measures ostensibly to protect children are used to control political content. Measures to fight terrorism are used to oppress minorities ... The danger of unintended consequences is that certain regimes use what is happening in the West as an enabling excuse to solidify their powers. So it is very difficult to have one size fits all type of legislation*. " - Rebecca Mackinnon, Cofounder, Global Networks Initiative > signing a treaty or memorandum of article will assure to the other > countries that political or geographical governments will not involved in a > mass cyber attack trough internet. This is in the benefit of the health of > the internet. > It would not help. It would only be of use to the ITU in furthering its Security propaganda. ------------------------------ *From:* McTim *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org *Sent:* Tue, 2 February, 2010 15:02:54 *Subject:* Re: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War Imran, I agree with Olivier and Siva. This is an idea that is in driect opposition to our notions of a Free and Open Internet. On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Today anyone can obtain any kind of domain name and can host it anywhere > that may be accessible from any other corner of the world. And that is how it should remain. Similarly > Internet is accessible to every one. Well, it should be, but many billions do not have access. In some countries, you can be denied access to the Internet as well. China has decline the google claim that > they are not involved in such kind of attack on Google. Well, but China has > to take care about the domain registrations with .cn ccTLD and all Data > Centers of the country. You don't need to own a domain name to launch a cyber attack. > > China and Google is the first case but I would like to recommend to > Government Authorities, ICT Policy makers/implementers, and Stakeholders of > each country to STOP issuance of new domain names (registrations) with their > ccTLD name space and hosting-services from their data-centers to > non-citizens immediately. I am an US citizen, living in Kenya. Why would you restrict my ability (right) to launch a business or hobby website in the .ke namespace. In Kenya, hosting is relatively expensive, so people host in the USA. Why make Africans spend more money than they need to to host a domain? Second step is to re-evaluate the existing domain > names & hosting and formulate a methodology to constantly monitoring and > record the internet traffic to and from existing ccTLD domain names (hosted > inland). These actions will prevent misuse of ccTLD name space and protect > the nations pulling into the cyber war. No, they won't. See above. Neither a web host nor a domain name is needed to launch a cyber attack. If they found any misuse or moderate > traffic from a domain, immediately the information has to be passed to the > UN communications and technology agency. I'm all in favor of listing hosts who spew malware, but what could the ITU do about it? They have no powers of enforcement, nor should they. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Feb 2 16:00:12 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 02:00:12 +0500 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <701af9f71002021300i2b3bb9b5p830ed376c97964ad@mail.gmail.com> Hi Parminder and all, I would like to confirm this from both the OCs and MAG meetings including the IGF2009 that both 'NN/open Internet' and 'development agenda in IG' were heavily discussed topics both within and outside IGF and have substantial interventions as well as material to back them both on the record from the process floor and around the multistakeholderism, through publications and research and it is only a matter of time that these two become Main Session Themes for the upcoming IGFs'. Secondly as far as the ITU is concerned, it should be kept as a stakeholder in equality with all members of the multistakeholderism and from their current pursuits and from what I heard in the past, they should be kept with the ICC or simply private sector group. Third, we may also have to go through this issue of clarity within our understanding of IGC members to keep IGC safe of any possible attempts of bending-over tipping over of members of the other groups of the multistakeholder and trying to lobby their interests through the IGC. There may be issues where the multistakeholderism may be in rough consensus together but on the stance of ITU, I know that atleast IGC would say no to ITU's attempts already discussed on the list elsewhere. Fourth, I have been observing some confusing discussions being triggered on the IGC lists and comments popping up either seeming to be diversions from the main issues at hand by members that are not from the heart and spirit of what we mutually understand as CS and I've always shared this understanding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Society This clearly differentiates the oppositions as well as forces that are in interplay between facilitating opinion building and sectoral politics from the space that we currently volunteer in and represent in order to to promote global public interest objectives in Internet governance policy making. We bring the voice of the people and the users but not the state or commercial interests or any such combined interests. Where ITU discussions come into place, we have to be very clear on our understanding because that is what we will counter on the floor as well as during the upcoming meetings next week. Finally, is a possible issue of clarity that it is not a rule or any standard practice that IGC Co-ordinators read IGC statements. Originally there are may IGC members present on the floor as well as remotely through our messaging applications and any member from the IGC is free to deliberate, intervene, counter and manage the responses arising to evolving issues (depending on the member's volunteering and/or availability present physically or remotely). We all appreciate the hard work undertaken by Ginger and now Jeremy as well as past co-ordinators to prepare statements as well as voluntarily present them on floor during the meetings/consultations. All of us are free to bring our understanding and knowledge about HR, NN/Open Internet and Development Agenda in Internet. I am sure we as CS members are very clear on the prevailing issues of Human Rights and we have been participating in the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles and more members will be present to take stand. Similarly, when issues pertaining to NN/Open Internet come up, the entire floor comes to life and with the evolution of the need for a possible Development Agenda in Internet, our members like Bill and other dear friends have been working by conducting workshops and being present in the meetings, consultations and IGF to bring the issues for dialogue and intervene on the floor. This process can neither be prevented nor overpowered, its the public opinion and the dynamics of the discussion space and politics that instantaneously take place that all our member in their capacities, positions, beliefs, understandings, convictions, groups, communities, organizations try to intervene on, deliberate on, counter, maneuver, handle etc (whatever the dynamics of discussions taking place) Lets be very clear on some things that we have very strong mutual consensus and understanding of issues very important to us for the benefit of the voices we represent and being present on the floor to program the IGF does not mean that pre-agreed statements and paper work always help. We also have IGC meetings all around the day during the mornings, at lunches, in the evenings and its a continuous process that then comes back to this list and keeps on evolving and improving. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:49 PM, Parminder wrote: > McTim > > I must say that i do not see any possibility of a proposed theme on 'right > to development of Internet' going anywhere in the OC and MAG. > > However more importantly, i really do not understand the content on this > theme - and what exactly you seek to achieve? > > BTW, I think all these years if there is one thing I have heard you assert > repeatedly it is that everyone already has an absolute right to the > development of the Internet (through, what you always claim, is the > absolutely open and unhindered access to bottom-up Internet policy forums > you keep mentioning). So if everyone already has this right, what exactly > are we seeking here? > > In any case, a new unclear theme can simply not become a main session theme. > On the other hand, 'NN/open Internet' and 'development agenda in IG' are > both now well discussed themes inside and outside the IGF, and have enough > 'body' to be considered to be main session themes. > > Parminder > > McTim wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Lisa Horner > wrote: > >  How do we strike the balance between being strategic and practical, > and standing for what we believe in? > > This is my attempt at all 3. HR seems to be a nonstarter (at least it > hasn't gotten anywhere in the past). It's strategic and practical in > that I think that the 4th stakeholder group would probably get behind > it, as well as PS and some governments. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Tue Feb 2 21:07:26 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 21:07:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > I would like to mention only little points. if the traffic and accessibility of the internet is traceable by monitoring and controlled with existing policies why still everyone is facing spam and hacking attacks? I will note that an implied requirement of an "open" Internet is an "accountable" Internet, and on that matter we have a poor global track record. By "accountable", I mean the ability to determine the parties involved in any Internet traffic, i.e. a non-anonymous Internet. This is absolutely necessary if we are to have the Internet continue to grow and scale without being subject to debilitating hacking/DDoS attacks (note that the ability to discover after the fact where traffic is coming from isn't an issue for a closed Internet, since it is inherent in the controlled nature of all connections). The underlying requirement is that an ISP needs to be able to identify the party originating any traffic the ISP sends to other networks. This doesn't necessarily have to be publicly- visible, but does need to be obtaining on short notice by ISPs in order to keep the network operational at all times. At present, this principal only tenuously maintained due to the nature of the DNS & IP Whois directories, and no common declaration of this principle has been made to date. As a result, we now have numerous occasions where we simply can not ascertain the origination of traffic, and this enables the large scale hacked server farms that then mount attacks on websites, clog everyones email with spam, etc. There are real social implications of ISP's having to know who is originating their Internet traffic, and also in the use of such information for purposes other than keeping the Internet operational. It is for these reasons that a discussion of the need for accountability versus the privacy/human rights implications might be appropriate at some future IGF forum, particularly in the context of maintaining an open (but still useful) Internet. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jfcallo at isocperu.org Tue Feb 2 21:48:26 2010 From: jfcallo at isocperu.org (jfcallo at isocperu.org) Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:48:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with In-Reply-To: <4B686A42.4070302@gmail.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <4B686A42.4070302@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20100202214826.oz1xfpgo0g4kgwwg@www.isocperu.org> Dear Ginger: Is it possible to participate in Skype? from Lima, Peru Will it be in Spanish? Thanks Jose F. Callo Romero Secretario ISOC Peru ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From toml at communisphere.com Tue Feb 2 22:39:57 2010 From: toml at communisphere.com (Thomas Lowenhaupt) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 22:39:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <015d01caa482$90a5a900$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> John, Having seen your recent contributions on this list relating to IPv6 allocations, I'm wondering if you are aware of differences that we might encounter in regard to Cyber War potentials as we move from 4 > 6. If you are aware of any, perhaps you, or someone else on the list, might point out any differences. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Curran" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:07 PM Subject: Re: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War On Feb 2, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > I would like to mention only little points. if the traffic and > accessibility of the internet is traceable by monitoring and controlled > with existing policies why still everyone is facing spam and hacking > attacks? I will note that an implied requirement of an "open" Internet is an "accountable" Internet, and on that matter we have a poor global track record. By "accountable", I mean the ability to determine the parties involved in any Internet traffic, i.e. a non-anonymous Internet. This is absolutely necessary if we are to have the Internet continue to grow and scale without being subject to debilitating hacking/DDoS attacks (note that the ability to discover after the fact where traffic is coming from isn't an issue for a closed Internet, since it is inherent in the controlled nature of all connections). The underlying requirement is that an ISP needs to be able to identify the party originating any traffic the ISP sends to other networks. This doesn't necessarily have to be publicly- visible, but does need to be obtaining on short notice by ISPs in order to keep the network operational at all times. At present, this principal only tenuously maintained due to the nature of the DNS & IP Whois directories, and no common declaration of this principle has been made to date. As a result, we now have numerous occasions where we simply can not ascertain the origination of traffic, and this enables the large scale hacked server farms that then mount attacks on websites, clog everyones email with spam, etc. There are real social implications of ISP's having to know who is originating their Internet traffic, and also in the use of such information for purposes other than keeping the Internet operational. It is for these reasons that a discussion of the need for accountability versus the privacy/human rights implications might be appropriate at some future IGF forum, particularly in the context of maintaining an open (but still useful) Internet. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 2 23:26:38 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2010 20:26:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <618863.34880.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <69474.98460.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Hello, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, Thanks for your quotes.   I can understand reason of anxiety, however I am reluctant to be pulled into any kind of Cyber Attack as you may understand from my prospective. I would like to remain with positive constructive approach.   Imran ________________________________ From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Imran Ahmed Shah Cc: McTim ; Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Wed, 3 February, 2010 0:36:29 Subject: Re: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War Hello Imran Ahmed Shah On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: I said that country should keep monitoring mass traffic source. >  >I am afraid of the possible cyber war). You are afraid of the 'possible' cyber war, many others from Government or business are afraid of various types of Cyber attacks, the common man is worried about his safety and his children's safely online. There is some basis for all these concerns, but we are constantly subjected to propaganda that exaggerates these threats to make us far more afraid of these threats than we need to be. But your idea of "monitoring mass traffic source" and policing the Internet would bring in untold harm. Experts discussed some of the dangers of disproportionate controls at a panel discussion at the IGF in Egypt: "The anti terrorist legislations which we have seen over the last few years are under the presumption that you have to give away freedom in order to preserve security. We have given away quite a good part of our freedom but I am not sure of its effect on security. The hypothesis is that there is problem of proportionality between between the measures of restriction and the gains on security due to the measures." -Prof Dr.Wolfgang Benedek, Director of the Institute of International Law and International Relations of the University of Graz, Austria and of the European Training and Research Centre for Human Rights and Democracy in Graz (ETC) "Security has become such a means to an end, security has become such an industry that it is almost self fulfilling" - Prof. Simon Davies, Founder and Director, Privacy International and visiting Senior Fellow, London School of Economics " We have entered an era where national security is the pass to do anything, in a way that it was when there was a war on drugs was ten years ago that you can use that phrase to justify anything...By giving away our privacy in some misguided attempts to make us secure against terrorism, we are actually reducing our security against governments, against multi national corporations, against those who are in power". -Bruce Schneier, "Security Guru" and Internationally renowned security technologist and Writer. "In china measures ostensibly to protect children are used to control political content. Measures to fight terrorism are used to oppress minorities ... The danger of unintended consequences is that certain regimes use what is happening in the West as an enabling excuse to solidify their powers. So it is very difficult to have one size fits all type of legislation. " - Rebecca Mackinnon, Cofounder, Global Networks Initiative  signing a treaty or memorandum of article will assure to the other countries that political or geographical governments will not involved in a mass cyber attack trough internet. This is in the benefit of the health of the internet. It would not help. It would only be of use to the ITU in furthering its Security propaganda.   ________________________________ From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Tue, 2 February, 2010 15:02:54 Subject: Re: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War Imran, I agree with Olivier and Siva.  This is an idea that is in driect opposition to our notions of a Free and Open Internet. On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > Today anyone can obtain any kind of domain name and can host it anywhere > that may be accessible from any other corner of the world. And that is how it should remain. Similarly > Internet is accessible to every one. Well, it should be, but many billions do not have access.  In some countries, you can be denied access to the Internet as well. China has decline the google claim that > they are not involved in such kind of attack on Google. Well, but China has > to take care about the domain registrations with .cn ccTLD and all Data > Centers of the country. You don't need to own a domain name to launch a cyber attack. > > China and Google is the first case but I would like to recommend to > Government Authorities, ICT Policy makers/implementers, and Stakeholders of > each country to STOP issuance of new domain names (registrations) with their > ccTLD name space and hosting-services from their data-centers to > non-citizens immediately. I am an US citizen, living in Kenya. Why would you restrict my ability (right) to launch a business or hobby website in the .ke namespace. In Kenya, hosting is relatively expensive, so people host in the USA. Why make Africans spend more money than they need to to host a domain? Second step is to re-evaluate the existing domain > names & hosting and formulate a methodology to constantly monitoring and > record the internet traffic to and from existing ccTLD domain names (hosted > inland). These actions will prevent misuse of ccTLD name space and protect > the nations pulling into the cyber war. No, they won't.  See above.  Neither a web host nor a domain name is needed to launch a cyber attack. If they found any misuse or moderate > traffic from a domain, immediately the information has to be passed to the > UN communications and technology agency. I'm all in favor of listing hosts who spew malware, but what could the ITU do about it?  They have no powers of enforcement, nor should they. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Feb 3 00:48:08 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 00:48:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] How to Prevent Cyber War (IPv4 / IPv6 differences?) In-Reply-To: <015d01caa482$90a5a900$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <015d01caa482$90a5a900$7800a8c0@powuseren2ihcx> Message-ID: <87EB690C-157D-49DF-BF5C-E718F988F716@arin.net> On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:39 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt wrote: > John, > > Having seen your recent contributions on this list relating to IPv6 > allocations, I'm wondering if you are aware of differences that we might > encounter in regard to Cyber War potentials as we move from 4 > 6. > > If you are aware of any, perhaps you, or someone else on the list, might > point out any differences. There are folks in the security field who could better address this, but I'll outline three major differences which I see as relevant: 1. IPv6 address space is very large, and this does allow a new defense against the traditional scanning done by viruses & worms. By allocating non-sequential/sparse addresses to your hosts, viruses are less likely to find other systems on your networks. There's a very nice writeup of this property and the caveats that apply in RFC5157. 2. Short-term, the appearance of various gateways between IPv4 and IPv6 is going to make verifying the other end of a given connection rather difficult. E.g. Your server was broken into, and via exceptional record keeping and forensic skills you manage to determine it came from IPv4 address xx.yy.zz.ii. When you try and track that down, it turns out to have been dynamically assigned by an ISP to one of his new customers whose actual connection is over IPv6. Will that ISP be able to determine who had been temporarily assigned xx.yy.zz.ii some number of days back at a certain time of day? 3. Back to my point about accountability: At present, one of the major reasons that ISPs maintain public records of their IP address allocations to customers is that this information is used to determine their actual usage when they apply for an additional IPv4 allocation from their local friendly Regional Internet Registry (RIR). This happens on a 6 to 12 month interval for many growing ISPs. With IPv6 and the guidance received from the IETF and the ISP community, the minimum allocation size to ISPs is such that many may never come back for an additional allocation and hence the need to keep the public records of suballocations accurate may be greatly reduced or eliminated altogether. I hope this helps in your consideration of the topic, /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 3 03:40:15 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 11:40:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Apologies for the length of this post, but I am going to try and reply to both PJS and Fouad in a single post to avoid multiple messages. On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Parminder wrote: > McTim > > I must say that i do not see any possibility of a proposed theme on 'right > to development of Internet' going anywhere in the OC and MAG. Who would be opposed and could you explain why they might be opposed (leaving out the folk who have already voiced their opinion on list)? I came up with the idea specifically to find something that might appeal to many on the MAG. > > However more importantly, i really do not understand the content on this > theme - and what exactly you seek to achieve? > > BTW, I think all these years if there is one thing I have heard you assert > repeatedly it is that everyone already has an absolute right to the > development of the Internet (through, what you always claim, is the > absolutely open and unhindered access to bottom-up Internet policy forums > you keep mentioning). So if everyone already has this right, what exactly > are we seeking here? See my reply to Siva yesterday. I will attempt to summarise again: 1. We tried Rights and DA for IG already and failed. Since you see this via a political lens, I will say that given that politics is the art of the possible, we know already what is not possible. This is an attempt to repackage the concepts of rights and development in to a politically palatable Theme. Even though HR and DA were discussed, this is no guarantee that they will be accepted. Optimism around this as a certainty is unfounded in reality. 2. Your formulation of a DA for IG found here: http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/OECD-ITfC.pdf is based upon faulty assumptions of what the Internet is. You seem to see it a a "thing" that can be "claimed as a public infrastructure with a strong public goods perspective." The Internet, being a network of network is fundamentally the protocols/ports/adddresing schemes, etc that allow us to do Internetworking. It's very easy for us to see the Internet as something that can be very useful in economic and social development. However, I would suggest that these effects are epiphenomenal, and that it is difficult to regulate epiphenomenon. It is far easier and more effective for those interested in IG to participate in the activities that have enabled the growth of the phenomenon and that will continue its growth in the future. 3. I don't know that i have ever asserted that we all have this "right" before. What I have asserted is that we have the ability. I am merely seeking to discuss a possible right to advance capacity building around these issues at the IGF. This is a desperate need IMO. 4. I've only got 6 years of experience in Internetworking in Africa, that may not be a long enough time to judge, but from what I have seen, economic and social development can come from Internet diffusion. Internet diffusion relies somewhat on capacity building on IG issues. We have seen tremendous progress in re: Internet access here in Africa, much of it because of the exceptional work done in capacity building by CS orgs like AfNOG, which falls squarely under the definition of CS that Fouad sent. He was not a subscriber several years ago when we had this discussion about who is CS and who is not, but by the definition he sent: "Civil society refers to the arena of uncoerced collective action around shared interests, purposes and values.", I can make no conclusion other than that the African IG bodies are CS. To suggest that two stakeholder groups could not hold the same view is detrimental to our cause. If we truly represent the user, we should empower them to participate in IG activities. > > In any case, a new unclear theme can simply not become a main session theme. How do we know until we try? Is it your personal opposition to such an idea or a thorough political analysis of the MAG? If the latter, could you explain who might vote for or against such an idea? > On the other hand, 'NN/open Internet' and 'development agenda in IG' are > both now well discussed themes inside and outside the IGF, and have enough > 'body' to be considered to be main session themes. I know what NN means to me, and I know what constitutes a DA for IG in my mind. However, you have differing views about what they mean. I am all for both openness and development arising from IG. I'm all about both, really. If you or others would like to write a statement for the IGCs consideration, I would be happy to read it. Meanwhile, the statement I have put on the table is still the only one in consideration AFAIK. Finally I refer to the charter text: "The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of those members who are physically present at the meeting." What this means to me is that IGC members can say anything they want, but cannot represent their opinions as IGC positions. -- 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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Wed Feb 3 03:56:57 2010 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:56:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with Skype In-Reply-To: <701af9f71002021017vf23c99ds9b39c046f85d8439@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry but i will have to stay in Paris, for university reasons. Have a good session Divina Le 02/02/10 19:17, « Fouad Bajwa » a écrit : > > Je serai là mes amis! > > ;O) confirming! > > Best > > Fouad > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> The list for the meeting on Feb. 8th (Monday) at Les Brasseurs is below. If >> you are not noted, and can join us, please let me and Bill know by private >> email. If you are not on the list, and happen to be able to join us at the >> last minute, please do so!!! >> >> Les Brasseurs has WiFi... so if anyone wants to join us on Skype, please let >> me know by private email... we can ping you when we start actual >> discussions. Best, gp >> >> Avri >> Fouad >> Hartmut >> Ginger >> Roland >> Carlos Afonso >> Bill Drake and Wife >> Parminder >> Katitza >> Milton (9 pm) >> Willie Currie >> >> >> >> William Drake wrote: >> >> We passed by the resto today and inquired, need to contact the manager when >> he's in tomorrow.  Past experiences have been that when we had a group of >> like 15 they gave us the whole room, but on other occasions when we had more >> like 10 they had us share the room with other big groups, which made >> conversation a bit more difficult.  So it would be very helpful to know for >> sure how many people we will have ASAP. >> Thanks, >> BIll >> >> On Feb 1, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> William Drake said: >> >> Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is generally >> very crowded, could be even on a Monday night.  If you're thinking people >> will stand around at the bar drinking there's no problem, if you want to >> have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head count and to reserve the room on >> the side as in years past, if available. >> So far we have 11 people confirmed for an IGC meeting on Monday evening, >> February 8th at Les-Brasseurs, across Rue de Lausanne from Cornavin. >> >> Can anyone else join us  for this planning session?  ( OC on Tuesday morning >> ) Please confirm to me by email offlist. >> >> Best, >> gp >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >>  Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 3 04:25:02 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:55:02 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with In-Reply-To: <20100202214826.oz1xfpgo0g4kgwwg@www.isocperu.org> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <4B686A42.4070302@gmail.com> <20100202214826.oz1xfpgo0g4kgwwg@www.isocperu.org> Message-ID: <4B6940EE.7030508@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Feb 3 04:28:01 2010 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:28:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: <618863.34880.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <618863.34880.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20100203092801.GA27872@nic.fr> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 03:32:53AM -0800, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote a message of 230 lines which said: > Dear McTim, do you really agree on the opinion against the rights of > a country to protect them and to be aware of the threats which may > be used against them just by utilizing their ccTLD name space or the > internet from their region? I am in favor of providing Internet > facility but I said that country should keep monitoring mass traffic > source. Whether we think it is a good idea or not to "keep monitoring mass traffic source", McTim's point was that there is zero relationship with the ccTLD name space. As McTim said (and, for once, I agree with him), you do not need a domain name to launch an attack. In a famous and documented case, the Pakistan Telecom involuntary attack against YouTube , there was zero DNS trick involved, everything was done with BGP and the fact that the attacker had a ".pk" domain name was completely irrelevant. So, Internet security is an important point but, it has very little to do with the registration policies of ccTLD. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Feb 3 04:31:39 2010 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:31:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20100203093139.GB27872@nic.fr> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:07:26PM -0500, John Curran wrote a message of 51 lines which said: > The underlying requirement is that an ISP needs to be able to > identify the party originating any traffic the ISP sends to other > networks. [...] this enables the large scale hacked server farms > that then mount attacks I do not get the point, technically speaking. If the attacker has access to "a large scale hacked server farm", then he does not need to disguise the IP addresses of the attacking machines since they are not officially his machines. In that case (which is a very common one, a botnet), having BCP 38 filtering at ISPs and having perfect whois access to perfect RIR databases would not help at all: dDOS performed by botnets typically do not hide their IP addresses. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Feb 3 05:01:23 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:01:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: How to Prevent Cyber War In-Reply-To: <20100203093139.GB27872@nic.fr> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <955805.51395.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <579805.97439.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20100203093139.GB27872@nic.fr> Message-ID: <534F91F9-5AEE-4126-A34B-6AAED0C2E6FE@arin.net> On Feb 3, 2010, at 7:31 PM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > ... > I do not get the point, technically speaking. If the attacker has > access to "a large scale hacked server farm", then he does not need to > disguise the IP addresses of the attacking machines since they are not > officially his machines. Yes, but once you uncover a command and control server IP address for said botnet farm, you need to move very quickly if you want to block or intercept that traffic. /John ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 3 05:03:42 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:33:42 -0430 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B6949FE.9050509@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 05:34:15 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:34:15 +0300 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6949FE.9050509@gmail.com> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <4B6949FE.9050509@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > I think we have some good discussions going on and they should continue. > however, we need to move towards some concrete wording. Can we have > proposals for consideration? (I was attracted to John Curran's "accountable > Internet", but that was in another context). > > Could we have a some options? Short, one paragraph propositions to consider? How about this: The IGC supports paragraph 52 of the Tunis Agenda which states, Inter alia, that 'all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, have the opportunity to participate in policy decision-making relating to Internet governance". We would like the IGF to explore the idea that this could be developed further into a Main Theme for the IGF. Previously we proposed a Human Rights and Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and we see paragraph 52 supporting this position. -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 05:40:18 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 16:10:18 +0530 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <4B6949FE.9050509@gmail.com> Message-ID: + + + 1 on On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 4:04 PM, McTim wrote: > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 1:03 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > The IGC supports paragraph 52 of the Tunis Agenda which states, Inter > alia, that 'all stakeholders, particularly from developing countries, > have the opportunity to participate in policy decision-making relating > to Internet governance". We would like the* IGF to explore the idea > that this could be developed further into a Main Theme for the IGF*. > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > (Previously we proposed a Human Rights and Development Agenda for > Internet Governance, and we see paragraph 52 supporting this position.) > > -- > 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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 05:48:55 2010 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 05:48:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <955945.1790.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <955945.1790.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74051002030248ke520b75j15b3378e6791cee3@mail.gmail.com> Hi Eric *et al*, nice 2 c u. Just a thought... , Agree that HR is rather a reserved term and one could run into HR HR by the way (example: The Internet one first, its administration second). IHR is even shorter. Yet still goes catchingly beyond IR. Cordial regards and *respectfully interfacing*, LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Perhaps it could be worrisome to relegate and demote Human Rights to "HR". > Interesting that we see the use of HR generally for that strange "science > of Human Resources". What I do think would do the cause well is an acronym > that will be catchy and help pitch the idea vis a vie the Human Rignts of > the Internet. My first thought was the sound "rights" being applied to Human > Rights of the Internet Theory = HRIT. > > --- On Mon, 2/1/10, McTim wrote: > > > From: McTim > Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Date: Monday, February 1, 2010, 11:22 AM > > > All > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 29/01/2010, at 6:36 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > > and add, two substantive themes - development agenda and HR - for IGF > > Vilnius.... these are our long standing demands.... and what is the point > > not to suggest even broad areas for themes, when the present meeting will > > decide the themes, and a good part of the IGF is about these key themes > for > > each IGF. > > > > I will suggest we also propose 'Network Neutrality or Open Internet' as a > > theme (good work was done on this theme by IGC co-sponsored workshop in > IGF > > Sharm on this issue, and this work should be taken forward in a main > session > > now) > > > > Ginger will be at the open consultation meeting and can deliver an oral > > statement on themes for the Vilnius meeting, separately to our statement > > looking back at Sharm el Sheikh. It is entirely appropriate to split up > our > > statements like this, and there is precedent for it. > > So, let's get to work on such a statement now. > > Done (rewritten our statement from pre-Egypt: > > IGC Statement on Themes for IGF 2010 > > The Internet Governance Caucus supports the "Right to > Internet Development" as a major theme for IGF-5 in Vilnius. This > should lead to discourse at the IGF meetings moving towards the > definition and clarification of Principles and Best Practices in > relation to Internet policy development, and how they relate to > pre-existing conditions in Internet Governance. It also includes a > space for discussions about the responsibilities of all parties. > > This concept of "rights" continues to stress the importance of > openness, transparency and bottom up Internet policy and standards > development. This framework will continue to emphasize the significant > theme of the need to maintain interoperability and openness to ensure > the continued availability of the Internet ‘commons’, while adding the > important issues of devices, content and applications of their choice. > In keeping with current national and international debates regarding > an "open Internet" and relevant aspects of the often confusing network > neutrality discussions. > > Net neutrality can often mean different things to different people. > The IGC feels that at a minimum, net neutrality discussions in the IGF > should recognize the principle of nondiscrimination of Internet > traffic based on the ownership, source, destination, port or protocol, > keeping in mind that providers must actively manage their networks in > the face of growing threats from SPAM, DDOS attacks and other forms of > abuse. this principle must apply to both wireless and wireline > broadband infrastructure. > > The inclusion of "principles" allows for wide discussion of the > responsibilities that the different stakeholders have to each other. > It allows for open examination of the principles that govern Internet > policy making. > > Given that Internet development and innovation contributes > significantly to economic and social development, the IGC strongly > supports the rights of people everywhere to contribute to the > continued eveolution of the Internet and its policy and standards > making bodies. > > Within the mandate of the IGF and in support of strengthening this > multistakeholder process, we ask that the IGF Secretariat continue > and expand the use of Remote Participation as a tool for attendance at > the IGF 2010 in Latvia as a proven method to include new voices. Best > Practices in this area would be a sub-theme of the Right to Internet > Development. > > -- > 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 > > T > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Feb 3 06:02:54 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:02:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> McTim, et al, On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:40 AM, McTim wrote: [snip] > > 1. We tried Rights and DA for IG already and failed. With regard to the latter, it's true that the caucus has in the past done statements calling for a main session on the notion of a development agenda, and that this hasn't been taken up. There are undoubtedly a number of reasons for this, including inter alia a) varying perceptions of the DAs that have been pursued in other international policy settings, e.g. WIPO; b) concerns or just lack of a clear view about what a DA might mean in the IG context; c) a + b + the idea arose outside MAG and lacked sufficient internal champions; and so on. However, the situation has changed. At the May 09 OC Markus and Nitin mentioned several times that people have raised the connections between IG and development and said it might be ripe for a main session. And in Sharm there were various expressions of interest in the possibility. For example, in the WSIS Principles session I talked a bit about the DA workshop I'd organized, and Bill Graham in summarizing the discussion took favorable note of the conceptual progress made across this and the prior workshops I did at Hyderabad and Rio. In the Taking Stock session I suggested a main session on IG4D (to which Sha made a favorable remark in reply), others also raised development as a cross-cutting theme that deserves more visible attention (e.g. Heather, Parminder, Willie, Fouad...even the USG), and if memory serves Nitin raised it in the closing. So I think Parminder's right that the clouds have been seeded and there's reasonably wide interest in there being a main session of some sort on IG4D, if not necessarily the DA framing. Insofar as the IGC has advocated this and members have pushed the concept forward in various ways, it would be a rather odd moment for us to back off and not express continued interest in making it happen. Walking away from an argument you're winning is generally an unusual strategy. > > 2. Your formulation of a DA for IG found here: The concept of a DA is one that can be taken in a number of different directions. Parminder sees an integral link to the negotiation of a Framework Convention. APC has also advocated a DA (and I believe, a FC...foggy memory). My view is that posing a DA as necessarily involving some sort of meta-negotiations, particularly of a FC, is premature and a conversation stopper; what I've argued for in the first instance is a holistic framework of analysis and dialogue on the links between global IG processes and outcomes on the one hand and development on the other that would identify good practices and such that could be taken up in decision making forums. Those of us who are interested in this can and should debate the options further, the point here is that it doesn't make sense for you to fix on one way of thinking about the whole terrain and on that basis say no, bad idea. What I would suggest is that the IGC adopt a text advocating a more broadly framed main session on IG4D—what if anything does the term mean, what are the linkages between global IG and development with respect to core resources and other issue areas, how might one take the conversation forward. In that context, the DA concept can be mentioned as a way of moving beyond identifying links toward doing something, with what that something may be posed as a point on which there are various perspectives. This would hopefully avoid arousing undue concerns that would prevent the core concept of IG4D getting a hearing, without precluding the possibility of exploring DA visions in that broader context. Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 07:34:07 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:34:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: Bill, Thanks for weighing in on this... On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 2:02 PM, William Drake wrote: > McTim, et al, > Those of us who are interested in this can and should debate the options further, the point here is that it doesn't make sense for you to fix on one way of thinking about the whole terrain and on that basis say no, bad idea. > I'm not saying it was a bad idea, I just tried to put it in a formulation that has a chance of being accepted. I'm all for talking about development in the IGF. > What I would suggest is that the IGC adopt a text advocating a more broadly framed main session on IG4D—what if anything does the term mean, what are the linkages between global IG and development with respect to core resources and other issue areas, how might one take the conversation forward.  In that context, the DA concept can be mentioned as a way of moving beyond identifying links toward doing something, with what that something may be posed as a point on which there are various perspectives.  This would hopefully avoid arousing undue concerns that would prevent the core concept of IG4D getting a hearing, without precluding the possibility of exploring DA visions in that broader context. Do you have a para on that? Do we need something today or for February? -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 07:48:42 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:18:42 -0430 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Feb 3 08:55:24 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 14:55:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> Message-ID: Hi Ginger, Wouldn't it make sense to try to get some sense of consensus first on topics before trying to wordsmith their descriptions? It seems clear there's a good chunk of people who'd like to propose NN again, but I'm not clear that the same is true with respect to IG4D. BTW I just took a quick peek at our Hyderabad statement on main sessions http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 which called for NN and DA, and I believe there were prior statements endorsing a DA as well, but most of our stuff is not on the site and my IGC folder going back to 03 is a mess. Sometime after the OC it'd be great if we could consolidate on the site from the list archive, Adam's old site, etc... would be useful. On another note, the manager at Les Brasseurs just wrote to say they can't reserve the whole room for us as we're only @ 14 people and they're always packed. Is a half a room and shouting at each other through the noise ok, or do you want to consider another venue? Please let me know ASAP. Bill On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Thanks Bill, > Could you propose an alternate paragraph? I think we should try to get a concrete phrasing for consensus with the whole IGC (hopefully) reading the possibilities before we get to Geneva. > > We have many experts here on the list who will not be in Geneva. It is important for you to give us your input now, so that those of us who are in Geneva can properly represent the IGC. Even if you do not consider yourself an "expert", your experience and opinion count. Only by hearing from you, can we know what the IGC position is. > > Please post your ideas -- preferably with a proposed paragraph -- as soon as possible. > > Thanks! Best, Ginger > > William Drake wrote: >> >> McTim, et al, >> >> On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:40 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >>> 1. We tried Rights and DA for IG already and failed. >>> >> >> With regard to the latter, it's true that the caucus has in the past done statements calling for a main session on the notion of a development agenda, and that this hasn't been taken up. There are undoubtedly a number of reasons for this, including inter alia a) varying perceptions of the DAs that have been pursued in other international policy settings, e.g. WIPO; b) concerns or just lack of a clear view about what a DA might mean in the IG context; c) a + b + the idea arose outside MAG and lacked sufficient internal champions; and so on. >> >> However, the situation has changed. At the May 09 OC Markus and Nitin mentioned several times that people have raised the connections between IG and development and said it might be ripe for a main session. And in Sharm there were various expressions of interest in the possibility. For example, in the WSIS Principles session I talked a bit about the DA workshop I'd organized, and Bill Graham in summarizing the discussion took favorable note of the conceptual progress made across this and the prior workshops I did at Hyderabad and Rio. In the Taking Stock session I suggested a main session on IG4D (to which Sha made a favorable remark in reply), others also raised development as a cross-cutting theme that deserves more visible attention (e.g. Heather, Parminder, Willie, Fouad...even the USG), and if memory serves Nitin raised it in the closing. So I think Parminder's right that the clouds have been seeded and there's reasonably wide interest in there being a main session >> of some sort on IG4D, if not necessarily the DA framing. Insofar as the IGC has advocated this and members have pushed the concept forward in various ways, it would be a rather odd moment for us to back off and not express continued interest in making it happen. Walking away from an argument you're winning is generally an unusual strategy. >> >> >>> 2. Your formulation of a DA for IG found here: >>> >> >> >> The concept of a DA is one that can be taken in a number of different directions. Parminder sees an integral link to the negotiation of a Framework Convention. APC has also advocated a DA (and I believe, a FC...foggy memory). My view is that posing a DA as necessarily involving some sort of meta-negotiations, particularly of a FC, is premature and a conversation stopper; what I've argued for in the first instance is a holistic framework of analysis and dialogue on the links between global IG processes and outcomes on the one hand and development on the other that would identify good practices and such that could be taken up in decision making forums. Those of us who are interested in this can and should debate the options further, the point here is that it doesn't make sense for you to fix on one way of thinking about the whole terrain and on that basis say no, bad idea. >> >> What I would suggest is that the IGC adopt a text advocating a more broadly framed main session on IG4D—what if anything does the term mean, what are the linkages between global IG and development with respect to core resources and other issue areas, how might one take the conversation forward. In that context, the DA concept can be mentioned as a way of moving beyond identifying links toward doing something, with what that something may be posed as a point on which there are various perspectives. This would hopefully avoid arousing undue concerns that would prevent the core concept of IG4D getting a hearing, without precluding the possibility of exploring DA visions in that broader context. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 3 09:03:48 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:03:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CBF5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Bill, Get to work and give Ginger a draft paragraph for people to pick apart. Please. My 2 cents: both the development agenda however phrased and 'open internet' (+/- NN ; ) are logical and meaningful main themes for IGF 5, we should not shy away from backing them now. ________________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:55 AM To: gpaque at gmail.com Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius Hi Ginger, Wouldn't it make sense to try to get some sense of consensus first on topics before trying to wordsmith their descriptions? It seems clear there's a good chunk of people who'd like to propose NN again, but I'm not clear that the same is true with respect to IG4D. BTW I just took a quick peek at our Hyderabad statement on main sessions http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 which called for NN and DA, and I believe there were prior statements endorsing a DA as well, but most of our stuff is not on the site and my IGC folder going back to 03 is a mess. Sometime after the OC it'd be great if we could consolidate on the site from the list archive, Adam's old site, etc... would be useful. On another note, the manager at Les Brasseurs just wrote to say they can't reserve the whole room for us as we're only @ 14 people and they're always packed. Is a half a room and shouting at each other through the noise ok, or do you want to consider another venue? Please let me know ASAP. Bill On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: Thanks Bill, Could you propose an alternate paragraph? I think we should try to get a concrete phrasing for consensus with the whole IGC (hopefully) reading the possibilities before we get to Geneva. We have many experts here on the list who will not be in Geneva. It is important for you to give us your input now, so that those of us who are in Geneva can properly represent the IGC. Even if you do not consider yourself an "expert", your experience and opinion count. Only by hearing from you, can we know what the IGC position is. Please post your ideas -- preferably with a proposed paragraph -- as soon as possible. Thanks! Best, Ginger William Drake wrote: McTim, et al, On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:40 AM, McTim wrote: [snip] 1. We tried Rights and DA for IG already and failed. With regard to the latter, it's true that the caucus has in the past done statements calling for a main session on the notion of a development agenda, and that this hasn't been taken up. There are undoubtedly a number of reasons for this, including inter alia a) varying perceptions of the DAs that have been pursued in other international policy settings, e.g. WIPO; b) concerns or just lack of a clear view about what a DA might mean in the IG context; c) a + b + the idea arose outside MAG and lacked sufficient internal champions; and so on. However, the situation has changed. At the May 09 OC Markus and Nitin mentioned several times that people have raised the connections between IG and development and said it might be ripe for a main session. And in Sharm there were various expressions of interest in the possibility. For example, in the WSIS Principles session I talked a bit about the DA workshop I'd organized, and Bill Graham in summarizing the discussion took favorable note of the conceptual progress made across this and the prior workshops I did at Hyderabad and Rio. In the Taking Stock session I suggested a main session on IG4D (to which Sha made a favorable remark in reply), others also raised development as a cross-cutting theme that deserves more visible attention (e.g. Heather, Parminder, Willie, Fouad...even the USG), and if memory serves Nitin raised it in the closing. So I think Parminder's right that the clouds have been seeded and there's reasonably wide interest in there being a main session of some sort on IG4D, if not necessarily the DA framing. Insofar as the IGC has advocated this and members have pushed the concept forward in various ways, it would be a rather odd moment for us to back off and not express continued interest in making it happen. Walking away from an argument you're winning is generally an unusual strategy. 2. Your formulation of a DA for IG found here: The concept of a DA is one that can be taken in a number of different directions. Parminder sees an integral link to the negotiation of a Framework Convention. APC has also advocated a DA (and I believe, a FC...foggy memory). My view is that posing a DA as necessarily involving some sort of meta-negotiations, particularly of a FC, is premature and a conversation stopper; what I've argued for in the first instance is a holistic framework of analysis and dialogue on the links between global IG processes and outcomes on the one hand and development on the other that would identify good practices and such that could be taken up in decision making forums. Those of us who are interested in this can and should debate the options further, the point here is that it doesn't make sense for you to fix on one way of thinking about the whole terrain and on that basis say no, bad idea. What I would suggest is that the IGC adopt a text advocating a more broadly framed main session on IG4D—what if anything does the term mean, what are the linkages between global IG and development with respect to core resources and other issue areas, how might one take the conversation forward. In that context, the DA concept can be mentioned as a way of moving beyond identifying links toward doing something, with what that something may be posed as a point on which there are various perspectives. This would hopefully avoid arousing undue concerns that would prevent the core concept of IG4D getting a hearing, without precluding the possibility of exploring DA visions in that broader context. Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 3 09:16:05 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 09:46:05 -0430 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B698525.4090502@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 3 11:49:34 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:19:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> Ginger and others Why should we not just take the text from the statement we made proposing main themes for IGF Hyderabad that Bill has referred to( http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 ) . The text is as follows. We can just update information of respective workshops on both the topics that were held in Egypt, one of them IGC co-sponsored. In nay case we have little time left to finalist the statement. Excerpt from our statement for IGF Hyderabad Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. This main session will examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss government, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. Parminder William Drake wrote: > Hi Ginger, > > Wouldn't it make sense to try to get some sense of consensus first on > topics before trying to wordsmith their descriptions? It seems clear > there's a good chunk of people who'd like to propose NN again, but I'm > not clear that the same is true with respect to IG4D. > > BTW I just took a quick peek at our Hyderabad statement on main > sessions http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 which called for NN and DA, > and I believe there were prior statements endorsing a DA as well, but > most of our stuff is not on the site and my IGC folder going back to > 03 is a mess. Sometime after the OC it'd be great if we could > consolidate on the site from the list archive, Adam's old site, > etc... would be useful. > > On another note, the manager at Les Brasseurs just wrote to say they > can't reserve the whole room for us as we're only @ 14 people and > they're always packed. Is a half a room and shouting at each other > through the noise ok, or do you want to consider another venue? > Please let me know ASAP. > > Bill > > > On Feb 3, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Thanks Bill, >> Could you propose an alternate paragraph? I think we should try to >> get a concrete phrasing for consensus with the whole IGC (hopefully) >> reading the possibilities before we get to Geneva. >> >> We have many experts here on the list who will not be in Geneva. It >> is important for you to give us your input now, so that those of us >> who are in Geneva can properly represent the IGC. Even if you do not >> consider yourself an "expert", your experience and opinion count. >> Only by hearing from you, can we know what the IGC position is. >> >> Please post your ideas -- preferably with a proposed paragraph -- as >> soon as possible. >> >> Thanks! Best, Ginger >> >> William Drake wrote: >>> McTim, et al, >>> >>> On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:40 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> [snip] >>> >>> >>>> 1. We tried Rights and DA for IG already and failed. >>>> >>> >>> With regard to the latter, it's true that the caucus has in the past done statements calling for a main session on the notion of a development agenda, and that this hasn't been taken up. There are undoubtedly a number of reasons for this, including inter alia a) varying perceptions of the DAs that have been pursued in other international policy settings, e.g. WIPO; b) concerns or just lack of a clear view about what a DA might mean in the IG context; c) a + b + the idea arose outside MAG and lacked sufficient internal champions; and so on. >>> >>> However, the situation has changed. At the May 09 OC Markus and Nitin mentioned several times that people have raised the connections between IG and development and said it might be ripe for a main session. And in Sharm there were various expressions of interest in the possibility. For example, in the WSIS Principles session I talked a bit about the DA workshop I'd organized, and Bill Graham in summarizing the discussion took favorable note of the conceptual progress made across this and the prior workshops I did at Hyderabad and Rio. In the Taking Stock session I suggested a main session on IG4D (to which Sha made a favorable remark in reply), others also raised development as a cross-cutting theme that deserves more visible attention (e.g. Heather, Parminder, Willie, Fouad...even the USG), and if memory serves Nitin raised it in the closing. So I think Parminder's right that the clouds have been seeded and there's reasonably wide interest in there being a main session >>> of some sort on IG4D, if not necessarily the DA framing. Insofar as the IGC has advocated this and members have pushed the concept forward in various ways, it would be a rather odd moment for us to back off and not express continued interest in making it happen. Walking away from an argument you're winning is generally an unusual strategy. >>> >>> >>>> 2. Your formulation of a DA for IG found here: >>>> >>> >>> >>> The concept of a DA is one that can be taken in a number of different directions. Parminder sees an integral link to the negotiation of a Framework Convention. APC has also advocated a DA (and I believe, a FC...foggy memory). My view is that posing a DA as necessarily involving some sort of meta-negotiations, particularly of a FC, is premature and a conversation stopper; what I've argued for in the first instance is a holistic framework of analysis and dialogue on the links between global IG processes and outcomes on the one hand and development on the other that would identify good practices and such that could be taken up in decision making forums. Those of us who are interested in this can and should debate the options further, the point here is that it doesn't make sense for you to fix on one way of thinking about the whole terrain and on that basis say no, bad idea. >>> >>> What I would suggest is that the IGC adopt a text advocating a more broadly framed main session on IG4D---what if anything does the term mean, what are the linkages between global IG and development with respect to core resources and other issue areas, how might one take the conversation forward. In that context, the DA concept can be mentioned as a way of moving beyond identifying links toward doing something, with what that something may be posed as a point on which there are various perspectives. This would hopefully avoid arousing undue concerns that would prevent the core concept of IG4D getting a hearing, without precluding the possibility of exploring DA visions in that broader context. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> Senior Associate >>> Centre for International Governance >>> Graduate Institute of International and >>> Development Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >>> *********************************************************** >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Feb 3 12:02:37 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:02:37 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with Skype References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <4B686A42.4070302@gmail.com> <701af9f71002021017vf23c99ds9b39c046f85d8439@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B95@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Will arrive around 11.00 p.m. lets see if still somebody is there. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Gesendet: Di 02.02.2010 19:17 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Cc: William Drake Betreff: Re: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with Skype Je serai là mes amis! ;O) confirming! Best Fouad On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > The list for the meeting on Feb. 8th (Monday) at Les Brasseurs is below. If > you are not noted, and can join us, please let me and Bill know by private > email. If you are not on the list, and happen to be able to join us at the > last minute, please do so!!! > > Les Brasseurs has WiFi... so if anyone wants to join us on Skype, please let > me know by private email... we can ping you when we start actual > discussions. Best, gp > > Avri > Fouad > Hartmut > Ginger > Roland > Carlos Afonso > Bill Drake and Wife > Parminder > Katitza > Milton (9 pm) > Willie Currie > > > > William Drake wrote: > > We passed by the resto today and inquired, need to contact the manager when > he's in tomorrow. Past experiences have been that when we had a group of > like 15 they gave us the whole room, but on other occasions when we had more > like 10 they had us share the room with other big groups, which made > conversation a bit more difficult. So it would be very helpful to know for > sure how many people we will have ASAP. > Thanks, > BIll > > On Feb 1, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > William Drake said: > > Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is generally > very crowded, could be even on a Monday night. If you're thinking people > will stand around at the bar drinking there's no problem, if you want to > have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head count and to reserve the room on > the side as in years past, if available. > So far we have 11 people confirmed for an IGC meeting on Monday evening, > February 8th at Les-Brasseurs, across Rue de Lausanne from Cornavin. > > Can anyone else join us for this planning session? ( OC on Tuesday morning > ) Please confirm to me by email offlist. > > Best, > gp > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 3 15:05:15 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 01:05:15 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with Skype In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B95@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <4B686A42.4070302@gmail.com> <701af9f71002021017vf23c99ds9b39c046f85d8439@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B95@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <701af9f71002031205ie0ca54dt2ce32fc7c5cddb63@mail.gmail.com> Since the place is open till late, lets do the time around 8:30pm or 9:00pm if that's okay with everyone that way most of our colleagues will be able to make it like Wolfgang and so forth? 2010/2/3 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" : > Will arrive around 11.00 p.m. lets see if still somebody is there. > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] > Gesendet: Di 02.02.2010 19:17 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque > Cc: William Drake > Betreff: Re: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with Skype > > > > Je serai là mes amis! > > ;O) confirming! > > Best > > Fouad > > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> The list for the meeting on Feb. 8th (Monday) at Les Brasseurs is below. If >> you are not noted, and can join us, please let me and Bill know by private >> email. If you are not on the list, and happen to be able to join us at the >> last minute, please do so!!! >> >> Les Brasseurs has WiFi... so if anyone wants to join us on Skype, please let >> me know by private email... we can ping you when we start actual >> discussions. Best, gp >> >> Avri >> Fouad >> Hartmut >> Ginger >> Roland >> Carlos Afonso >> Bill Drake and Wife >> Parminder >> Katitza >> Milton (9 pm) >> Willie Currie >> >> >> >> William Drake wrote: >> >> We passed by the resto today and inquired, need to contact the manager when >> he's in tomorrow.  Past experiences have been that when we had a group of >> like 15 they gave us the whole room, but on other occasions when we had more >> like 10 they had us share the room with other big groups, which made >> conversation a bit more difficult.  So it would be very helpful to know for >> sure how many people we will have ASAP. >> Thanks, >> BIll >> >> On Feb 1, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> William Drake said: >> >> Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is generally >> very crowded, could be even on a Monday night.  If you're thinking people >> will stand around at the bar drinking there's no problem, if you want to >> have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head count and to reserve the room on >> the side as in years past, if available. >> So far we have 11 people confirmed for an IGC meeting on Monday evening, >> February 8th at Les-Brasseurs, across Rue de Lausanne from Cornavin. >> >> Can anyone else join us  for this planning session?  ( OC on Tuesday morning >> ) Please confirm to me by email offlist. >> >> Best, >> gp >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >>  Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 3 15:20:47 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:20:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3822@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Ian: You raise a good question but one that is bound to make certain people uncomfortable. > -----Original Message----- > What I do have, following McTims research, is that the > justification appears to be a concept called NCW (Network- > centric warfare). Would it not be fair, then, to allocate > and reserve blocks of the same size for the military of > each nation state so that we have a level playing (sic) field for > network-centric warfare? The best assumption I can make is that your question is rhetorical and you are trying to highlight the problems associated with the militarization of cyberspace. Or, maybe you are serious? If the latter, why should RIRs (or anyone else outside a military apparatus) do _anything_ to facilitate network-centric warfare in any way? Secondly, if you do push the internet into a political logic dictated by nation-states, then it is illogical to expect a more powerful nation-state to cede its advantage (if there is such an advantage) by granting equality to other states, which are its rivals or even enemies. Despite all the talk we hear about how governments bring rules and order to cyberspace, the primordial political fact is that across states, and especially in military affairs, there is basic anarchy between and among nations. So it is likely that the allocation of resources on the internet, insofar as it is politically and militarily driven, will reflect the power inequalities among nation-states. So be careful what you ask for. I suggest that despite all the hostility to markets that is routinely displayed on this list, that allocation according to basic principles of supply and demand looks pretty humane and rational by comparison. The apologia for "needs based allocation" that has been floated here overlooks one of its most important shortcomings: in engineering, "need" is defined WITHOUT REGARD TO ECONOMIC SCARCITY. Therefore, in principle, if I or the US military or anyone could prove that they "need" all of the IPv4 or IPv6 space for some implementation of a network, in principle they should get it. The fact that one year later, or three weeks or a decade later someone else might be able to demonstrate need for the same amount of addresses and not get them because they have already been allocated to others is not taken into consideration. Needs based allocations exempt requestors from paying any kind of social opportunity cost. Another fact: when McTim accurately describes the difference between the definition of "need" in the IPv4 world (based on number of hosts actually needing individual IP addresses) and "need" in the IPv6 world (number of subnets, tbe basic unit of which is a /64 which contains 18,446,744,073,709,500,000 bit combinations) it becomes incredibly clear just how fuzzy the definition is "need" is even in engineering terms. Plenty of room here for more or less liberal interpretations. you may find the answer to your question about DoD in that fuzzy space. Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Feb 3 15:36:17 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:36:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be > > more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we > > really want to put out these fires? > > If by useful you mean inducing hundreds of people to > simultaneously get up for a coffee break or try to check > their mail, sure. Otherwise, no. Not the purpose of an IGF > main session. > > What would be useful though would be for there to be a > regularized stream of properly calibrated techie tutorial > sessions available alongside the workshops, open forums, etc > for people who want to know more. I've never understood why Problem is, Bill, the politics are deeply embedded in the technology. You have to know both. Compare McTim's description of "needs-based allocations" to mine in my last message. No, the last thing we need are the RIRs and ISOC lecturing about how IP address allocation is all based on rational technical criteria and couldn't possibly be done any other way. If you want a real glimpse into the political issues and problems posed in this area, you have to go onto their policy lists and (yes) sink or swim in the techno-jargon until you figure out what is really going on. The RIRs' policy lists have truly fascinating, honest, bare-all, bare-knuckled policy fights where the real stakes come out on display. Put the same people in front of an IGF main session or tutorial, on the other hand, and suddenly it's a bland, mainstreamed session delivering the party line and pretending there's nothing contentious about any of it....zzzzz. Actually at ICANN meetings there are some pretty darn good tutorials. That's because the audience at ICANN is more heterogeneous and includes business people, lawyers, governments and NGOs as well as techies. If you wanted to catch up on dnssec issues or IDN policy issues or other vexatious intersections between tech standards and policies, some of the icann workshops have been good. They, too have their party line to promote but typically there's a clueful enough audience to afford the opportunity for some debate and dialogue. --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 jcurran at arin.net Wed Feb 3 15:37:12 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:37:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3822@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3822@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0A0814A6-E0B3-49E3-A0B7-4EFC828F9CE2@arin.net> On Feb 4, 2010, at 6:20 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > ... > The best assumption I can make is that your question is rhetorical and you are trying to highlight the problems associated with the militarization of cyberspace. Or, maybe you are serious? > > If the latter, why should RIRs (or anyone else outside a military apparatus) do _anything_ to facilitate network-centric warfare in any way? True. The converse questions also needs to be asked: why should the RIRs do _anything_ to hinder any governments military use of the network? Would a market-based model preclude such use? > I suggest that despite all the hostility to markets that is routinely displayed on this list, that allocation according to basic principles of supply and demand looks pretty humane and rational by comparison. Markets certainly serve a useful purpose. If there were a market for Internet addresses, would you propose one that doesn't "do _anything_ to facilitate network-centric warfare in any way?" (or would you propose a market with political constraints based on some organizations idea of economic or social goodness?) > The apologia for "needs based allocation" that has been floated here overlooks one of its most important shortcomings: in engineering, "need" is defined WITHOUT REGARD TO ECONOMIC SCARCITY. Therefore, in principle, if I or the US military or anyone could prove that they "need" all of the IPv4 or IPv6 space for some implementation of a network, in principle they should get it. The fact that one year later, or three weeks or a decade later someone else might be able to demonstrate need for the same amount of addresses and not get them because they have already been allocated to others is not taken into consideration. Needs based allocations exempt requestors from paying any kind of social opportunity cost. In the case of the Internet number resource registry system, this is almost universally true. We have had policy proposals which contain various social needs, but they are rare, and the RIR system is not well-conceived to deal with judging "global social goodness". I've yet to see any organization capable of this, so understand that my disappointment is minimal. The RIR system performs technical administration based on documented *technical* need. While the lack of politics in the management of these resources may been seen as a defect by some, it is viewed as a feature by many. /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcurran at arin.net Wed Feb 3 15:50:08 2010 From: jcurran at arin.net (John Curran) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 15:50:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Feb 4, 2010, at 6:36 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Problem is, Bill, the politics are deeply embedded in the technology. You have to know both. Compare McTim's description of "needs-based allocations" to mine in my last message. No, the last thing we need are the RIRs and ISOC lecturing about how IP address allocation is all based on rational technical criteria and couldn't possibly be done any other way. If you want a real glimpse into the political issues and problems posed in this area, you have to go onto their policy lists and (yes) sink or swim in the techno-jargon until you figure out what is really going on. The RIRs' policy lists have truly fascinating, honest, bare-all, bare-knuckled policy fights where the real stakes come out on display. Put the same people in front of an IGF main session or tutorial, on the other hand, and suddenly it's a bland, mainstreamed session delivering the party line and pretending there's nothing contentious about any of it....zzzzz. > > Actually at ICANN meetings there are some pretty darn good tutorials. That's because the audience at ICANN is more heterogeneous and includes business people, lawyers, governments and NGOs as well as techies. If you wanted to catch up on dnssec issues or IDN policy issues or other vexatious intersections between tech standards and policies, some of the icann workshops have been good. They, too have their party line to promote but typically there's a clueful enough audience to afford the opportunity for some debate and dialogue. Milton is correct in his second point, in that there have been some very good tutorials at ICANN regarding the Internet number resource policy. I'll leave judgement of his first point to the reader, since the very good tutorials at ICANN have been presenters from the RIR community, and are the result of specific outreach that has occurred between ICANN and the RIRs to provide background information to the wider community. Better yet, I'd welcome folks to join the RIRs policy mailing lists as they are open to all and judge for yourself. For ARIN, Background educational material is available here: and information about getting involved and ARIN's Public Policy Mailing list is here: Enjoy, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 3 21:28:17 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:28:17 +0800 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 04/02/2010, at 12:49 AM, Parminder wrote: > Ginger and others > > Why should we not just take the text from the statement we made proposing main themes for IGF Hyderabad that Bill has referred to( http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 ) . The text is as follows. We can just update information of respective workshops on both the topics that were held in Egypt, one of them IGC co-sponsored. In nay case we have little time left to finalist the statement. > > Excerpt from our statement for IGF Hyderabad And if Human Rights is to be included along with NN and DA, then we have this fine previous statement for Sharm el Sheikh on which to draw. Of course, replace "Egypt" and "IGF-4" with "Lithuania" and "IGF-5". http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Substantive_3rd_IGF/igc_rights.doc An edited version follows: The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose, and that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Feb 3 21:51:11 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 13:51:11 +1100 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Sounds to me like we would be better proposing main session themes rather than aiming for an overarching theme at this early stage. And I would suggest that all three themes under discussion can be advanced by us as main session themes ­ we don¹t have to prioritise them. And we have previous statements on each we can adopt. Rights DA NN Ian From: Jeremy Malcolm Reply-To: , Jeremy Malcolm Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:28:17 +0800 To: , Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius On 04/02/2010, at 12:49 AM, Parminder wrote: > Ginger and others > > Why should we not just take the text from the statement we made proposing main > themes for IGF Hyderabad that Bill has referred to( > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 ) . The text is as follows. We can just > update information of respective workshops on both the topics that were held > in Egypt, one of them IGC co-sponsored. In nay case we have little time left > to finalist the statement. > > Excerpt from our statement for IGF Hyderabad And if Human Rights is to be included along with NN and DA, then we have this fine previous statement for Sharm el Sheikh on which to draw. Of course, replace "Egypt" and "IGF-4" with "Lithuania" and "IGF-5". http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Substantive_3rd_IGF/igc_rights.doc An edited version follows: The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made the overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt, and that the IGF-4's program be framed by the desire for developing a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. The IGC offers the IGF assistance in helping to shape such a discourse at the IGF meetings, and specifically to help make 'Rights and the Internet' an overarching theme for IGF-4 in Egypt. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim ³rights² it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet¹s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose, and that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 01:06:10 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:06:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All, On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 5:28 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 04/02/2010, at 12:49 AM, Parminder wrote: > > Ginger and others > > Why should we not just take the text from the statement we made proposing > main themes for IGF Hyderabad that Bill has referred to( > http://www.igcaucus.org/node/8 )   . The text is as follows. We can just > update information of respective workshops on both the topics that were held > in Egypt, one of them IGC co-sponsored. In nay case we have little time left > to finalist the statement. > > Excerpt from our statement for IGF Hyderabad > > And if Human Rights is to be included along with NN and DA If we are to believe Bill's analysis (which I accept) then the time may be ripe for NN/Open Internet and DA. He didn't say the the MAG/stakeholders were ready for HR to be included. Have I missed smt Bill? -- 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 Thu Feb 4 01:16:36 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:16:36 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Morning (in Nairobi) Milton, On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> > Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be >> > more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we >> > really want to put out these fires? >> >> If by useful you mean inducing hundreds of people to >> simultaneously get up for a coffee break or try to check >> their mail, sure.  Otherwise, no.  Not the purpose of an IGF >> main session. >> >> What would be useful though would be for there to be a >> regularized stream of properly calibrated techie tutorial >> sessions available alongside the workshops, open forums, etc >> for people who want to know more.  I've never understood why > > Problem is, Bill, the politics are deeply embedded in the technology. You have to know both. Compare McTim's description of "needs-based allocations" to mine in my last message. No, the last thing we need are the RIRs and ISOC lecturing about how IP address allocation is all based on rational technical criteria and couldn't possibly be done any other way. I think "shouldn't" not "couldn't" best describes my position. Of course, I don't speak for ISOC or the RIRs, so YMMV. If you want a real glimpse into the political issues and problems posed in this area, you have to go onto their policy lists and (yes) sink or swim in the techno-jargon until you figure out what is really going on. The RIRs' policy lists have truly fascinating, honest, bare-all, bare-knuckled policy fights where the real stakes come out on display. Put the same people in front of an IGF main session or tutorial, on the other hand, and suddenly it's a bland, mainstreamed session delivering the party line and pretending there's nothing contentious about any of it....zzzzz. I think this may be correct, and as it should be. The appropriate forum for RIR policy discussions are the RIR policy lists. The IGF is for capacity building around how these policy fora operate. This thread shows how much need we still have for capacity building. -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 4 03:27:45 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:27:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:06 AM, McTim wrote: > > If we are to believe Bill's analysis (which I accept) then the time > may be ripe for NN/Open Internet and DA. > > He didn't say the the MAG/stakeholders were ready for HR to be > included. Have I missed smt Bill? I was only addressing the development proposal since a) there's a contingent of us that have been advocating it for awhile without getting traction, b) it's central to the Tunis Agenda, and indeed the whole underlying political thrust of WSIS, and yet it's been set aside, c) there've been various expressions of openness or interest from important parties that suggest it could be accepted now, and d) particularly in light of b, it could appeal in particular to the developing country governments that have grumbled about IGF not addressing their issues sufficiently, and who will nevertheless be weighing in on the IGF's renewal. The last point is of particular importance. Everyone says we need to broaden and deepen developing country (government and other) engagement in and support for IGF but there's been insufficient effort to adjust the optics, much less the reality, in ways that might encourage this. And I might add that more focused discussion along these lines might reopen possibilities for constructive dialogue between CS and DvC governments, which would be useful in various ways. We had a couple meetings with the G77 and China four years ago to explore shared interests and options, but the channel went dark in the transition from WSIS to IGF for various reasons. My suggestion yesterday was to go for a broader IG4D framing in the hope that this would be more palatable to more parties, since some may conflate the DA concept with just one of the conceptions of it, negotiations of a meta-framework, that they would find unappealing. But as time is very short the path of least resistance is probably locally optimal, so why not go with Parminder's suggestion of reusing the statement language we previously agreed. Hopefully the MAG will have an informed discussion of the full range of options that doesn't go off the rails with some parties fearing WSIS-II and opposing a development session on that basis. As to the others, there might be some risk that the more main sessions we propose, the less focused consideration there will be of any one proposal. I don't have enough sense of MAG's dynamics to judge, but hope not. In any even there are sizable contingents supporting rights and NN, however defined, so I don't see how we could make everyone happy and get this done quickly without proposing all three using the previously consensual language. Cheers, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Feb 4 03:55:06 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:55:06 +0800 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 04/02/2010, at 4:27 PM, William Drake wrote: > As to the others, there might be some risk that the more main sessions we propose, the less focused consideration there will be of any one proposal. I don't have enough sense of MAG's dynamics to judge, but hope not. In any even there are sizable contingents supporting rights and NN, however defined, so I don't see how we could make everyone happy and get this done quickly without proposing all three using the previously consensual language. This seems sensible, yes, BUT with some tweaking to the Human Rights language to make it a main session theme rather than an over-arching theme - I suggest this, based closely on the previously-agreed text I posted earlier (only the first paragraph has changed): The Internet Governance Caucus strongly recommends that 'Rights and the Internet' be made a session theme for IGF-5 in Vilnius, which would explore a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. We recognize that while it is relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. There is no other global forum where such issues can be raised and explored in a non-binding context. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored. It is the view of the IG Caucus that a rights-based framework will be appropriate for this purpose, and that the IGF is the forum best suited to take up this task. -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 4 04:47:45 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:47:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi Milton On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >>> Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be >>> more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we >>> really want to put out these fires? >> >> If by useful you mean inducing hundreds of people to >> simultaneously get up for a coffee break or try to check >> their mail, sure. Otherwise, no. Not the purpose of an IGF >> main session. >> >> What would be useful though would be for there to be a >> regularized stream of properly calibrated techie tutorial >> sessions available alongside the workshops, open forums, etc >> for people who want to know more. I've never understood why > > Problem is, Bill, the politics are deeply embedded in the technology. You have to know both. Compare McTim's description of "needs-based allocations" to mine in my last message. No, the last thing we need are the RIRs and ISOC lecturing about how IP address allocation is all based on rational technical criteria and couldn't possibly be done any other way. So we shouldn't allow people who could use some technical capacity building to get it because they might drink a bit of kool-aid and acquire false consciousness in the process? I don't agree. There are a lot of people attending IGFs who don't have strong technical backgrounds and could benefit from some well presented nuts and bolts, how does stuff work material. Their ability to formulate judgements on how IPVG sub-netting should or could work would be enhanced if first they could find out what IPVG sub-netting is and why it matters. And with respect to the second step, should or could work, there's no reason such sessions couldn't include presentations by people with different points of view. Personally, I would be very happy to attend a session that walked through the basics and then had you and McTim debating the merits of different approaches to the governance dimensions. We'd just need to have an open and participatory process of designing and staffing the sessions, rather than simply handing responsibility to organizations that might offer singular answers to contestable questions. This strikes me as a far better approach than simply denying people access to knowledge out of fear they might hear stuff you think is slanted. Moreover, insofar as most if not all IGF attendees are already aware that there are politics and material interests involved, I wouldn't presume that people are so naive and impressionable that they need to be protected and are better off not knowing the nuts and bolts. > If you want a real glimpse into the political issues and problems posed in this area, you have to go onto their policy lists and (yes) sink or swim in the techno-jargon until you figure out what is really going on. The RIRs' policy lists have truly fascinating, honest, bare-all, bare-knuckled policy fights where the real stakes come out on display. Sure, if everyone had infinite bandwidth they could do this. But they don't, and hence don't. It's not an answer. > Put the same people in front of an IGF main session or tutorial, on the other hand, and suddenly it's a bland, mainstreamed session delivering the party line and pretending there's nothing contentious about any of it....zzzzz. Well, zzz to you. But you are not the target audience. > > Actually at ICANN meetings there are some pretty darn good tutorials. That's because the audience at ICANN is more heterogeneous and includes business people, lawyers, governments and NGOs as well as techies. If you wanted to catch up on dnssec issues or IDN policy issues or other vexatious intersections between tech standards and policies, some of the icann workshops have been good. They, too have their party line to promote but typically there's a clueful enough audience to afford the opportunity for some debate and dialogue. Understood, but also not an answer, sorry. Many if not most IGF attendees are not going to chase ICANN around the world. Plus, even for those of us who do, it can be a bit difficult to find time in the insanely packed schedules to attend these sessions, especially if one's involved in an SO or AC that's programmed wall to wall. Again, please bear in mind the diverse crowds that come to IGFs. Someone who works for a single issue NGO or the foreign ministry of a developing country or whatever is not going to reorganize their lives to be able to dive fully into the work flows of the various administrative bodies and after a few years start piecing things together. Nothing personal, but I am persistently astonished when folks like McTim and now you offer this as the only path to enlightenment. People are busy with other things and doing IGF will often be about as much as they can commit. I cannot fathom why we wouldn't want to use the opportunity to expose them to something, which is better than nothing, on the premise that what they really should be doing is getting exposed to everything instead. Don't you teach any undergrad students at Syracuse? Would you say that a student who's majoring in poli sci or economics should not take a survey course with you and get some baseline exposure to IG issues, instead they must change their major to information studies, take every course you offer (now that's a scary thought ;-) and then go on to a PhD, and then and only then will they know something useful? Pedagogically puzzled, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com Thu Feb 4 05:23:08 2010 From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 02:23:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] AU applauds ICT growth in Africa Message-ID: <967569.32914.qm@web110212.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>        Hi All ,   thought this piece  below will interest you. Ebenezer Annang --- On Mon, 2/1/10, Secretary Co-ordination wrote: From: Secretary Co-ordination Subject: [ginks] AU applauds ICT growth in Africa To: "GINKS" Date: Monday, February 1, 2010, 7:49 AM FYI AU applauds ICT growth in Africa THE African Union, which is holding its annual summit in Ethiopia, has expressed confidence in the growth of the information and communications technology in the sector. The Union’s communication and information division said its projections were buoyed by latest data revealed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). “African telephony network is characterized by quickly increasing mobile telephony penetration, making the digital cell phone as the mass ICT technology of choice for Africa. “African growth rates for mobile phones are highest in the world, leaping from 138 million in 2005 to 370 in 2008. “The total cost of owning a mobile phone (TCO) is a good indicator revealing how the affordability of mobile telephony has developed components of TCO which are the handset price, service fee, and taxes,” the division said in a statement in Addis Ababa at the ongoing summit. “Regarding the rapid proliferation of the mobile telephony, second generation Global System for Mobile (GSM) networks have been at the centre of the investment strategy of operators in Africa. These make up to 96% of all mobile cellular subscriptions in Africa. “Whereas the fixed line telephony penetration has never actually reached internationally comparative levels, new users and networks are in rule all mobile. According to the latest International Telecommunications Union (ITU) data, there is 43,5 mobile phones for every fixed line telephone in Africa and the trend is ascendant. The penetration rate for mobile phones has increased from 15,6 per hundred inhabitants to 39, respectively. Africa ranks behind other major regions in mobile telephone penetration.” The division said there are extensive backbone network coverage in sub-Saharan Africa, with about 508,000 kilometers of terrestrial backbone infrastructure (microwave and fibrotic cables) serving around three quarters of communications users. About a third of the terrestrial backbone in sub-Saharan Africa is owned by fixed operators. The other two-thirds of terrestrial backbone infrastructure and almost all satellite-based backbone infrastructures are owned by mobile operators. “In terms of contributing to the integration of Africa, mobile telephone networks and operators are critical in providing physical, reliable and affordable communication that connects the continent. “Pan-African mobile operators are promoting free roaming services across countries, making Africa the first region in the world to offer this innovative service. Most backbone infrastructure in sub-Saharan Africa is low-capacity wireless networks. Only 12% of terrestrial infrastructure in the region is fiber-optic cable; the rest is microwave, some 99% of the length of backbone networks is made up of microwave technology; just 1 percent is fibre,” it added. For more information: www.ginks.org Visit web site | Reply to sender | Click here to unsubscribe The email is intended only for the recipients. The owners of the Dgroups cannot be held responsible for the contents of the email message. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 06:47:03 2010 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 09:47:03 -0200 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3ef75b781002040347r1e08497bqccd7b50a69e4ba2@mail.gmail.com> Dear Colleagues, I decided to enter this discussion about IPv6 address allocations to DOD. All criteria are rational, however, we need to know what criteria were and why they were developed by a group of people from a single country and not by collective forum. I agree with Ian Peter, It would be good to know the exact number? The issue is not the criteria or numbers but the legitimacy of the adoption of these measures, without the universal acceptance of these criteria by the nations and countries. These authoritarian measures undermine the sovereignty and national security of all other countries in the world. The philosophical issues that remains are: where are the principles of democracy and freedom in these criteria? -- Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Geografia Humana Instituto de Geografia • Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ http://www.cibergeo.org/artigos/ 2010/2/4 William Drake > Hi Milton > > On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > >>> Wouldn't an IGF main session on IPv6 sub-netting and architecture be > >>> more useful than human rights and a development agenda for IG if we > >>> really want to put out these fires? > >> > >> If by useful you mean inducing hundreds of people to > >> simultaneously get up for a coffee break or try to check > >> their mail, sure. Otherwise, no. Not the purpose of an IGF > >> main session. > >> > >> What would be useful though would be for there to be a > >> regularized stream of properly calibrated techie tutorial > >> sessions available alongside the workshops, open forums, etc > >> for people who want to know more. I've never understood why > > > > Problem is, Bill, the politics are deeply embedded in the technology. > You have to know both. Compare McTim's description of "needs-based > allocations" to mine in my last message. No, the last thing we need are the > RIRs and ISOC lecturing about how IP address allocation is all based on > rational technical criteria and couldn't possibly be done any other way. > > So we shouldn't allow people who could use some technical capacity building > to get it because they might drink a bit of kool-aid and acquire false > consciousness in the process? I don't agree. There are a lot of people > attending IGFs who don't have strong technical backgrounds and could benefit > from some well presented nuts and bolts, how does stuff work material. > Their ability to formulate judgements on how IPVG sub-netting should or > could work would be enhanced if first they could find out what IPVG > sub-netting is and why it matters. And with respect to the second step, > should or could work, there's no reason such sessions couldn't include > presentations by people with different points of view. Personally, I would > be very happy to attend a session that walked through the basics and then > had you and McTim debating the merits of different approaches to the > governance dimensions. We'd just need to have an open and participatory > process of designing and staffing the sessions, rather than simply handing > responsibility to organizations that might offer singular answers to > contestable questions. > > This strikes me as a far better approach than simply denying people access > to knowledge out of fear they might hear stuff you think is slanted. > Moreover, insofar as most if not all IGF attendees are already aware that > there are politics and material interests involved, I wouldn't presume that > people are so naive and impressionable that they need to be protected and > are better off not knowing the nuts and bolts. > > > If you want a real glimpse into the political issues and problems posed > in this area, you have to go onto their policy lists and (yes) sink or swim > in the techno-jargon until you figure out what is really going on. The RIRs' > policy lists have truly fascinating, honest, bare-all, bare-knuckled policy > fights where the real stakes come out on display. > > Sure, if everyone had infinite bandwidth they could do this. But they > don't, and hence don't. It's not an answer. > > > Put the same people in front of an IGF main session or tutorial, on the > other hand, and suddenly it's a bland, mainstreamed session delivering the > party line and pretending there's nothing contentious about any of > it....zzzzz. > > Well, zzz to you. But you are not the target audience. > > > > Actually at ICANN meetings there are some pretty darn good tutorials. > That's because the audience at ICANN is more heterogeneous and includes > business people, lawyers, governments and NGOs as well as techies. If you > wanted to catch up on dnssec issues or IDN policy issues or other vexatious > intersections between tech standards and policies, some of the icann > workshops have been good. They, too have their party line to promote but > typically there's a clueful enough audience to afford the opportunity for > some debate and dialogue. > > Understood, but also not an answer, sorry. Many if not most IGF attendees > are not going to chase ICANN around the world. Plus, even for those of us > who do, it can be a bit difficult to find time in the insanely packed > schedules to attend these sessions, especially if one's involved in an SO or > AC that's programmed wall to wall. > > Again, please bear in mind the diverse crowds that come to IGFs. Someone > who works for a single issue NGO or the foreign ministry of a developing > country or whatever is not going to reorganize their lives to be able to > dive fully into the work flows of the various administrative bodies and > after a few years start piecing things together. Nothing personal, but I am > persistently astonished when folks like McTim and now you offer this as the > only path to enlightenment. People are busy with other things and doing IGF > will often be about as much as they can commit. I cannot fathom why we > wouldn't want to use the opportunity to expose them to something, which is > better than nothing, on the premise that what they really should be doing is > getting exposed to everything instead. Don't you teach any undergrad > students at Syracuse? Would you say that a student who's majoring in poli > sci or economics should not take a survey course with you and get some > baseline exposure to IG issues, instead they must change their major to > information studies, take every course you offer (now that's a scary thought > ;-) and then go on to a PhD, and then and only then will they know something > useful? > > Pedagogically puzzled, > > Bill > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 4 08:23:07 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:23:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: <3ef75b781002040347r1e08497bqccd7b50a69e4ba2@mail.gmail.com> References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <3ef75b781002040347r1e08497bqccd7b50a69e4ba2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: hello, On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Hindenburgo Pires wrote: > > Dear Colleagues, > > I decided to enter this discussion about IPv6 address allocations to DOD. > > All criteria are rational, however, we need to know what criteria were These criteria can be found in the NRPM: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html and > why they were developed by a group of people from a single country and not > by collective forum. You've jumped to a conclusion here. People from a number of countries are included in the ARIN service region: https://www.arin.net/knowledge/rirs/ARINcountries.html Canada Sector A 2 A 3 Region CANADA CA CAN ARIN Caribbean and North Atlantic Islands Sector A 2 A 3 Region ANGUILLA AI AIA ARIN ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA AG ATG ARIN BAHAMAS BS BHS ARIN BARBADOS BB BRB ARIN BERMUDA BM BMU ARIN CAYMAN ISLANDS KY CYM ARIN DOMINICA DM DMA ARIN GRENADA GD GRD ARIN GUADELOUPE GP GLP ARIN JAMAICA JM JAM ARIN MARTINIQUE MQ MTQ ARIN MONTSERRAT MS MSR ARIN PUERTO RICO PR PRI ARIN SAINT BARTHELEMY BL ARIN SAINT KITTS AND NEVIS KN KNA ARIN SAINT LUCIA LC LCA ARIN ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON PM SPM ARIN SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES VC VCT ARIN ST. MARTIN MF ARIN TURKS AND CAICOS ISLANDS TC TCA ARIN VIRGIN ISLANDS (BRITISH) VG VGB ARIN VIRGIN ISLANDS (U.S.) VI VIR ARIN United States and Outlying Areas Sector A 2 A 3 Region UNITED STATES US USA ARIN UNITED STATES MINOR OUTLYING ISLANDS UM UMI ARIN ANTARCTICA AQ ATA ARIN BOUVET ISLAND BV BVT ARIN HEARD AND MC DONALD ISLANDS HM HMD ARIN ST. HELENA SH SHN ARIN In addition, participation in the policy discussion is not limited to those in the service region.   I agree with Ian Peter, It would be good to know the > exact number? The issue is not the criteria or numbers but the legitimacy of > the adoption of these measures, without the universal acceptance of these > criteria by the nations and countries. Now here is where you have a fundamental misunderstanding of who develops Internet resource polices. Its NOT nations and countries, it's people. Individuals like myself who are interested in the subject matter for whatever reason. > > These authoritarian measures undermine the sovereignty and national security > of all other countries in the world. These are some of the LEAST "authoritarian measures" known to humankind. Everyone can have a say, and everyones voice counts. Strictly bottom up, open and transparent. The philosophical issues that remains > are: where are the principles of democracy and freedom in these criteria? I don't know how you can get any freer or democratic (in the sense of pure democracy) than RIR policy making procedures. You are welcome to join the policy discussions and try. -- 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 nhklein at gmx.net Wed Feb 3 21:59:45 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:59:45 +0700 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3822@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3822@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B6A3821.2000309@gmx.net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > Ian: > You raise a good question but one that is bound to make certain people uncomfortable. > > >> -----Original Message----- >> What I do have, following McTims research, is that the >> justification appears to be a concept called NCW (Network- >> centric warfare). Would it not be fair, then, to allocate >> and reserve blocks of the same size for the military of >> each nation state so that we have a level playing (sic) field for >> network-centric warfare? >> > > The best assumption I can make is that your question is rhetorical and you are trying to highlight the problems associated with the militarization of cyberspace. Or, maybe you are serious? > > If the latter, why should RIRs (or anyone else outside a military apparatus) do _anything_ to facilitate network-centric warfare in any way? > Though I am aware that this analogy is not easy to see (and probably more difficult to define in practical terms), the "equal playing field" has been the basis for all internatinal nuclear and conventional arms control treaties - but not between all nation states, only between the most powerful ones: in this case the USA and the Soviet Union and it heir, Russia. It is assumed that the "equal capacity" of mutual attack has been keeping the peace, in face of the threat of nuclear war, and on a different level (during the "cold war" period) between the Western European and the Eastern European conventional forces. It took many years of difficult negotiations to define the "balance" of powers - how to establish it, how to de-escalate to equal levels, and how to monitor compliance. And "non-proliferation treaties" have provided a method to invite/include smaller states into this scheme of "arms control." Cyber war is probably a much more sophisticated field (also with more destructive power at the disposal of small "players") - but it is obviously necessary for all of us to find ways how again - under the new constellation of cyber-space - engage in mutual confidence building (among adversaries!) in order to have a realistic hope for peace. Norbert Klein -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: >From Announcing to Implementing Reforms Sunday, 31.1.2010 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1gc (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 4 11:46:38 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 17:46:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with Skype In-Reply-To: <701af9f71002031205ie0ca54dt2ce32fc7c5cddb63@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> <4B686A42.4070302@gmail.com> <701af9f71002021017vf23c99ds9b39c046f85d8439@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8719B95@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <701af9f71002031205ie0ca54dt2ce32fc7c5cddb63@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Sorry to be sending a list of 400 details about a meeting of 15, but I don't have all the addresses etc. Fouad, 8:30pm is no good, it's a brew pub and the place gets mobbed, they won't hold a big empty space that late, and anyway if people wander in then (the Geneva dinner hour, when everyone's ordering) we won't get food until 10pm. The manager has confirmed a place for us at 7:30pm, hope folks can come more or less then so he doesn't get agitated. Any cancellations please let Ginger or I know. Details again at http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm. Thanks, Bill On Feb 3, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Since the place is open till late, lets do the time around 8:30pm or > 9:00pm if that's okay with everyone that way most of our colleagues > will be able to make it like Wolfgang and so forth? > > 2010/2/3 "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > : >> Will arrive around 11.00 p.m. lets see if still somebody is there. >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] >> Gesendet: Di 02.02.2010 19:17 >> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque >> Cc: William Drake >> Betreff: Re: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA--with Skype >> >> >> >> Je serai là mes amis! >> >> ;O) confirming! >> >> Best >> >> Fouad >> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> The list for the meeting on Feb. 8th (Monday) at Les Brasseurs is below. If >>> you are not noted, and can join us, please let me and Bill know by private >>> email. If you are not on the list, and happen to be able to join us at the >>> last minute, please do so!!! >>> >>> Les Brasseurs has WiFi... so if anyone wants to join us on Skype, please let >>> me know by private email... we can ping you when we start actual >>> discussions. Best, gp >>> >>> Avri >>> Fouad >>> Hartmut >>> Ginger >>> Roland >>> Carlos Afonso >>> Bill Drake and Wife >>> Parminder >>> Katitza >>> Milton (9 pm) >>> Willie Currie >>> >>> >>> >>> William Drake wrote: >>> >>> We passed by the resto today and inquired, need to contact the manager when >>> he's in tomorrow. Past experiences have been that when we had a group of >>> like 15 they gave us the whole room, but on other occasions when we had more >>> like 10 they had us share the room with other big groups, which made >>> conversation a bit more difficult. So it would be very helpful to know for >>> sure how many people we will have ASAP. >>> Thanks, >>> BIll >>> >>> On Feb 1, 2010, at 9:49 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>> William Drake said: >>> >>> Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is generally >>> very crowded, could be even on a Monday night. If you're thinking people >>> will stand around at the bar drinking there's no problem, if you want to >>> have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head count and to reserve the room on >>> the side as in years past, if available. >>> So far we have 11 people confirmed for an IGC meeting on Monday evening, >>> February 8th at Les-Brasseurs, across Rue de Lausanne from Cornavin. >>> >>> Can anyone else join us for this planning session? ( OC on Tuesday morning >>> ) Please confirm to me by email offlist. >>> >>> Best, >>> gp >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> *********************************************************** >>> William J. Drake >>> Senior Associate >>> Centre for International Governance >>> Graduate Institute of International and >>> Development Studies >>> Geneva, Switzerland >>> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >>> *********************************************************** >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 4 13:07:07 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:07:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C5A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Good grief. No one is talking about "denying access to knowledge" to aynone, so stop posturing. I am just explaining to you why you have found these issues to be boring in the past and why they don't need to be. The recipe for successful workshops on these topics is clear: _don't_ make it into tutorials controlled by institutions with a vested interest; _do_ include competing and conflicting policy perspectives. We seem to be in agreement on that. --MM ________________________________________ From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] So we shouldn't allow people who could use some technical capacity building to get it because they might drink a bit of kool-aid and acquire false consciousness in the process? I don't agree. There are a lot of people attending IGFs who don't have strong technical backgrounds and could benefit from some well presented nuts and bolts, how does stuff work material. Their ability to formulate judgements on how IPVG sub-netting should or could work would be enhanced if first they could find out what IPVG sub-netting is and why it matters. And with respect to the second step, should or could work, there's no reason such sessions couldn't include presentations by people with different points of view. Personally, I would be very happy to attend a session that walked through the basics and then had you and McTim debating the merits of different approaches to the governance dimensions. We'd just need to have an open and participatory process of designing and staffing the sessions, rather than simply handing responsibility to organizations that might offer singular answers to contestable questions. This strikes me as a far better approach than simply denying people access to knowledge out of fear they might hear stuff you think is slanted. Moreover, insofar as most if not all IGF attendees are already aware that there are politics and material interests involved, I wouldn't presume that people are so naive and impressionable that they need to be protected and are better off not knowing the nuts and bolts. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Feb 4 13:13:03 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 13:13:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C5B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I would disagree, a bit. the appropriate forum for policy MAKING may indeed be the RIR lists and members. The IGF however is very much an appropriate forum for policy DISCUSSION and debate. --MM ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] I think this may be correct, and as it should be. The appropriate forum for RIR policy discussions are the RIR policy lists. The IGF is for capacity building around how these policy fora operate. This thread shows how much need we still have for capacity building. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 4 14:51:49 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 22:51:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C5B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C5B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Evening Milton, On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > I would disagree, a bit. the appropriate forum for policy MAKING may indeed be the RIR lists and members. > The IGF however is very much an appropriate forum for policy DISCUSSION and debate. Absolutely correct. However, I wonder how folks at the IGF would feel if we had a really good workshop about the WHOIS issues that the ARIN community is debating this week at the next IGF. I mean a great workshop, everyone gained understanding of the issues clearly, aired their views, learned a lot, even came up with a consensus of the folk in the room about the way forward. Wouldn't it be a tad frustrating to leave the room after such an event knowing that you did it in the wrong place to have any impact? I think I would feel frustrated. This is why I support the capacity building approach. In this thread alone, we have had everything from accusations of authoritarianism to suspicions that the US military gets whatever they want via political pressure and that they would use these addresses to eavesdrop on every device on the planet. I think we need the education first before we can have meaningful policy discussions. -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Feb 5 05:06:44 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 11:06:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C5A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu>, <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C5A@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <0EA9277C-F5FE-4B64-B49C-D3571DCE3285@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi Milton, On Feb 4, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Good grief. No one is talking about "denying access to knowledge" to aynone, so stop posturing. Wasn't. You appeared to be saying we shouldn't do it due to the risk of indoctrination and people should just join RIR lists and go to ICANN meetings, which I thought was a bit dismissive and unrealistic. > I am just explaining to you why you have found these issues to be boring in the past and why they don't need to be. Thanks for explaining my thinking to me, your eminence :-) Did you giggle as much when writing this as I did when reading it? > The recipe for successful workshops on these topics is clear: _don't_ make it into tutorials controlled by institutions with a vested interest; _do_ include competing and conflicting policy perspectives. We seem to be in agreement on that. Great, we're in agreement, it could be useful if done right. Let's circle back sometime and flesh it out under a different subject line, if you're interested. Maybe this could be done as a collaboration between ISOC/admin orgs and GigaNet, IGC, CSOs... Cheers, Bill > > > ________________________________________ > From: William Drake [william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > > So we shouldn't allow people who could use some technical capacity building to get it because they might drink a bit of kool-aid and acquire false consciousness in the process? I don't agree. There are a lot of people attending IGFs who don't have strong technical backgrounds and could benefit from some well presented nuts and bolts, how does stuff work material. Their ability to formulate judgements on how IPVG sub-netting should or could work would be enhanced if first they could find out what IPVG sub-netting is and why it matters. And with respect to the second step, should or could work, there's no reason such sessions couldn't include presentations by people with different points of view. Personally, I would be very happy to attend a session that walked through the basics and then had you and McTim debating the merits of different approaches to the governance dimensions. We'd just need to have an open and participatory process of designing and staffing the sessions, rather than simply handing responsibility to organizations that might offer singular answers to contestable questions. > > This strikes me as a far better approach than simply denying people access to knowledge out of fear they might hear stuff you think is slanted. Moreover, insofar as most if not all IGF attendees are already aware that there are politics and material interests involved, I wouldn't presume that people are so naive and impressionable that they need to be protected and are better off not knowing the nuts and bolts. > *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Feb 5 07:16:21 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:16:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we are proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea. In the event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for Hyderabad, and we really can't use it anymore, it's dated. On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote: > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss government, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, “Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.” The workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet governance decision making processes. > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss government’s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. > How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive thrust of what was previously agreed: A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 5 07:26:43 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 17:56:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take this language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ Open Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights and principles' in the list, abstract a short para on it from the earlier statement which is relatively not very sharp, and in size no longer than the paras on dev agenda and NN. We shd put it out for a day or so of last comments and then a final version for a consensus call over 48 hours. In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour workshops on the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized last year, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. And if 'internet rights and principles' is included as a main theme, that the DC on IRP has been doing good work in this area for considerable time now, an dis in fact the most active dynamic coalition (the much celebrated concept in the IGF). Parminder William Drake wrote: > Hi > > With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we are > proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea. In > the event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for > Hyderabad, and we really can't use it anymore, it's dated. > > On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate >> for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme >> of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a main >> session that devoted significant, focused attention to the >> linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development. >> However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society actors >> in collaboration with the Swiss government, Brazilian Internet >> Steering Committee and other partners from all stakeholder >> groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda for Internet >> Governance." The workshop considered the options for establishing >> a holistic program of analysis and action that would help >> mainstream development considerations into Internet governance >> decision making processes. >> Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further >> work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the >> Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main session >> at Hyderabad, and that this would be of keen interest to a great >> many participants there. We also support the Swiss government's >> proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working >> Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a >> development agenda. >> > > How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive > thrust of what was previously agreed: > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the > IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of > IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing > dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean > in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC > previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for > Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or > produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an > agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the > Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this > theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the > linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We > also continue to support the Swiss government''s proposal to consider > establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop > recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. > > Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Fri Feb 5 07:35:08 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 13:35:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <69E10912-CFE4-45A5-9161-3E9D15695372@graduateinstitute.ch> On Feb 5, 2010, at 1:26 PM, Parminder wrote: > In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour workshops on the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized last year, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. How about >> >> >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >> >> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops (including a special three hour event at Sharm el Sheikh) >> or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. >> >> Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Feb 5 12:58:29 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:28:29 -0430 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Feb 5 13:50:52 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:50:52 +0300 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> References: <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ginger. On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone... I just got in to Geneva, and see that there have been no > responses to this. Jeremy, if it is ok with you, I think we should follow up > on Parminder's proposal. I think 6 hours is a bit hasty to make such a judgement. Our charter does not say that "Silence equals consent". I am ok with Bill's formulation, but don't think we have time to debate the addition of additional text. While I am all for NN and Open Internet, we can't agree amongst ourselves if we should phrase it Open Internet or NN, so I think we should leave it out for now. It doesn't seem to be global concern, but primarily a US c issue. Perhaps I've missed some NN issues coming from other countries. I am of the opinion that since we failed on the Human Rights theme last time, we should not try it again. I do trust Bill's analysis re: the acceptance of a DA as a ripe topic. I think we will hurt our chances if we includes the Human Rights theme as we did previously. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > Parminder: can you write up the actual wording for your proposal? I think it > is better if it comes from someone in the list. If you and Jeremy agree, we > can post: > > Parminder, since there have been no comments, please post your proposed > wording as soon as possible. We will then open for comments and call for > consensus... unfortunately probably 24h and 24h due to time constraints. > > Can you guys please try to get back to me asap? > > Thanks! > Ginger > > Parminder wrote: > > I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take this > language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ Open > Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights and principles' > in the list, abstract a short para on it from the earlier statement which is > relatively  not very sharp, and in size no longer than the paras on dev > agenda and NN. We shd put it out for a day or so of last comments and then a > final version for a consensus call over 48 hours. > > In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour workshops on the > two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized last year, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. And if > 'internet rights and principles' is included as a main theme, that the DC on > IRP has been doing good work in this area for considerable time now, an dis > in fact the most active dynamic coalition (the much celebrated concept in > the IGF). > > Parminder > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi > With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we are proceeding > with a theme statement or have given up on the idea.  In the event that it's > the former, I just reread what we agreed for Hyderabad, and we really can't > use it anymore, it's dated. > On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote: > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society > actors in collaboration with the Swiss government, Brazilian Internet > Steering Committee and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, > “Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.” The workshop > considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and > action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet > governance decision making processes. > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the > topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda > concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this > would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also > support the Swiss government’s proposal to consider establishing a > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive thrust > of what was previously agreed: > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. >  But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of > IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing > dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in > conceptual and operational terms.  To address this gap, the IGC previously > has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet > Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced > position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could > entail.   In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh > cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme.  The dialogue at > Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance > mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming > development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance > processes, as appropriate.  We also continue to support the > Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder > Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development > agenda. > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 5 14:48:42 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 14:48:42 -0500 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for In-Reply-To: References: <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CC2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> DA language seems generally cool by folks - if McTim, Bil, Parminer & I agree we're all set right - so 1 down *& 2 to go ; ) But seriously we are close there. Similarly I thought we were just tweaking wording on NN/open internet and see no harm in following Parminder's suggestion there as well. HR text re-proposed by CS would almost be expected and more noticeable for its absence, I would think. If if goes nowhere in MAG well at least we tried. Lee ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:50 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius Ginger. On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone... I just got in to Geneva, and see that there have been no > responses to this. Jeremy, if it is ok with you, I think we should follow up > on Parminder's proposal. I think 6 hours is a bit hasty to make such a judgement. Our charter does not say that "Silence equals consent". I am ok with Bill's formulation, but don't think we have time to debate the addition of additional text. While I am all for NN and Open Internet, we can't agree amongst ourselves if we should phrase it Open Internet or NN, so I think we should leave it out for now. It doesn't seem to be global concern, but primarily a US c issue. Perhaps I've missed some NN issues coming from other countries. I am of the opinion that since we failed on the Human Rights theme last time, we should not try it again. I do trust Bill's analysis re: the acceptance of a DA as a ripe topic. I think we will hurt our chances if we includes the Human Rights theme as we did previously. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > Parminder: can you write up the actual wording for your proposal? I think it > is better if it comes from someone in the list. If you and Jeremy agree, we > can post: > > Parminder, since there have been no comments, please post your proposed > wording as soon as possible. We will then open for comments and call for > consensus... unfortunately probably 24h and 24h due to time constraints. > > Can you guys please try to get back to me asap? > > Thanks! > Ginger > > Parminder wrote: > > I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take this > language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ Open > Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights and principles' > in the list, abstract a short para on it from the earlier statement which is > relatively not very sharp, and in size no longer than the paras on dev > agenda and NN. We shd put it out for a day or so of last comments and then a > final version for a consensus call over 48 hours. > > In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour workshops on the > two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized last year, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. And if > 'internet rights and principles' is included as a main theme, that the DC on > IRP has been doing good work in this area for considerable time now, an dis > in fact the most active dynamic coalition (the much celebrated concept in > the IGF). > > Parminder > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi > With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we are proceeding > with a theme statement or have given up on the idea. In the event that it's > the former, I just reread what we agreed for Hyderabad, and we really can't > use it anymore, it's dated. > On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote: > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society > actors in collaboration with the Swiss government, Brazilian Internet > Steering Committee and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, > “Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.” The workshop > considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and > action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet > governance decision making processes. > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the > topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda > concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this > would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also > support the Swiss government’s proposal to consider establishing a > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive thrust > of what was previously agreed: > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. > But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of > IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing > dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in > conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously > has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet > Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced > position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could > entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh > cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at > Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance > mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming > development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance > processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the > Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder > Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development > agenda. > Bill > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Feb 5 15:34:41 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 12:34:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for In-Reply-To: 4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com Message-ID: Feel the Room Ginger, make sure it clear that 'Internet rights and principles' includes DA (Development Agenda) and NN (Network Neutrality) as separate topics. 'Internet Rights and Principles' Theme 2010 DA (Development Agenda) = 'Right to Internet Development' NN (Network Neutrality) = 'Network Neutrality & Open Internet' Good Luck ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Feb 5 15:51:14 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 15:51:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] IPv6 address allocations to DOD In-Reply-To: References: <94032900-958C-48C4-8C70-2DC7A2D0D184@arin.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3823@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C5B@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E5876@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > > However, I wonder how folks at the IGF would feel if we had a really > good workshop about the WHOIS issues that the ARIN community is > debating this week at the next IGF. I mean a great workshop, everyone > gained understanding of the issues clearly, aired their views, learned > a lot, even came up with a consensus of the folk in the room about the > way forward. Wouldn't it be a tad frustrating to leave the room after > such an event knowing that you did it in the wrong place to have any > impact? Hmmm, what you're saying is that frustration is built into the genes of the IGF, because that is precisely what the IGF is supposed to do, nothing more. But you overstate your case a bit. The fact that the IGF is nonbinding discussion only doesn't' mean it has no impact. I guess the rationale is that if you can build a consensus in the non-binding and non authoritative space of the IGF its results can be carried into other, more authoritative institutional settings. Consensus, trust, and understanding can have strong spillover effects. The real problem with the IGF is that we so rarely get there. I think innocuous, apolitical so-called capacity building stuff is one of the reasons. > This is why I support the capacity building approach. Now THAT's a recipe for frustration imho. In my (admittedly academic and intellectual) view, you build capacity by dealing interactively with real politics, which means real people with real interests expressing their real opinions in real interactions in real situations. That's how people really laearn what is at stake and what the meaning of different positions and issues are. Not by spoon-feeding, patronizing one-way flows of knowledge from the wise to the ignorant. > In this thread alone, we have had everything from accusations of > authoritarianism to suspicions that the US military gets whatever they > want via political pressure and that they would use these addresses to > eavesdrop on every device on the planet. I think we need the > education first before we can have meaningful policy discussions. That's where we disagree. If those fears and suspicions exist they should be aired and the people airing them may learn that they are unfounded or the people pooh-poohing them may learn a few things, too. Both sides will change. Maybe. I agree however that the problem of specialized expertise is a severe one and there is no easy solution. I myself cannot keep up with ARIN ppml because I am trying to cover a wide swath of IG and the volume of comment, level of expertise and narrowness of the issues makes it difficult even for me to keep up. But this is not a criticism of ARIN - it is built into the nature of a highly complex, differentiated social structure. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Feb 5 15:53:57 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:53:57 +0000 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CC2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CC2A@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B6C8565.5010409@wzb.eu> Lee W McKnight wrote: > Similarly I thought we were just tweaking wording on NN/open internet > and see no harm in following Parminder's suggestion there as well. I agree. > > HR text re-proposed by CS would almost be expected and more > noticeable for its absence, I would think. If if goes nowhere in MAG > well at least we tried. I agree here as well. The HR section is a matter of wording rather than a substantial issue. We can get it accepted by MAG if we take into account the objection of MAG members who take issue with rights based approaches and resort to language instead that circumvents this conflict. jeanette > > Lee > > > ________________________________________ From: McTim > [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:50 PM To: > governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: OFFLIST:Re: > [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius > > Ginger. > > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Ginger Paque > wrote: >> Hi everyone... I just got in to Geneva, and see that there have >> been no responses to this. Jeremy, if it is ok with you, I think we >> should follow up on Parminder's proposal. > > I think 6 hours is a bit hasty to make such a judgement. Our charter > does not say that "Silence equals consent". > > I am ok with Bill's formulation, but don't think we have time to > debate the addition of additional text. While I am all for NN and > Open Internet, we can't agree amongst ourselves if we should phrase > it Open Internet or NN, so I think we should leave it out for now. > It doesn't seem to be global concern, but primarily a US c issue. > Perhaps I've missed some NN issues coming from other countries. > > I am of the opinion that since we failed on the Human Rights theme > last time, we should not try it again. I do trust Bill's analysis > re: the acceptance of a DA as a ripe topic. I think we will hurt our > chances if we includes the Human Rights theme as we did previously. > > -- Cheers, > > McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it > is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > >> Parminder: can you write up the actual wording for your proposal? I >> think it is better if it comes from someone in the list. If you and >> Jeremy agree, we can post: >> >> Parminder, since there have been no comments, please post your >> proposed wording as soon as possible. We will then open for >> comments and call for consensus... unfortunately probably 24h and >> 24h due to time constraints. >> >> Can you guys please try to get back to me asap? >> >> Thanks! Ginger >> >> Parminder wrote: >> >> I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take >> this language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ >> Open Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights >> and principles' in the list, abstract a short para on it from the >> earlier statement which is relatively not very sharp, and in size >> no longer than the paras on dev agenda and NN. We shd put it out >> for a day or so of last comments and then a final version for a >> consensus call over 48 hours. >> >> In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour >> workshops on the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized >> last year, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these >> themes within the IGF context. And if 'internet rights and >> principles' is included as a main theme, that the DC on IRP has >> been doing good work in this area for considerable time now, an dis >> in fact the most active dynamic coalition (the much celebrated >> concept in the IGF). >> >> Parminder >> >> William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we >> are proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea. >> In the event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for >> Hyderabad, and we really can't use it anymore, it's dated. On Feb >> 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote: >> >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key >> focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development >> also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio >> conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted >> significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet >> governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop >> was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the >> Swiss government, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and other >> partners from all stakeholder groupings on, “Toward a Development >> Agenda for Internet Governance.” The workshop considered the >> options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action >> that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet >> governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop >> expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being >> pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda >> concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that >> this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. >> We also support the Swiss government’s proposal to consider >> establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop >> recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. >> >> How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive >> thrust of what was previously agreed: A Development Agenda for >> Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda >> and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed >> as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a >> broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance >> for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational >> terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a >> main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and >> some its members have organized workshops or produced position >> papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could >> entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el >> Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. >> The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages >> between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and >> consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into >> IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. >> We also continue to support the Swiss government’'s proposal to >> consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could >> develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. Bill >> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 5 16:10:26 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:10:26 +1100 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for In-Reply-To: <4B6C8565.5010409@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I agree all three should go forward. We can also circumvent a consensus call and formal statement with language such as "members of civil society would like to suggest three possible main session themes" and by using the language generally agreed to either beforehand and on this list without formally adopting new statements as such. > From: Jeanette Hofmann > Reply-To: , Jeanette Hofmann > Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:53:57 +0000 > To: , Lee W McKnight > Cc: McTim , Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for > > > > Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Similarly I thought we were just tweaking wording on NN/open internet >> and see no harm in following Parminder's suggestion there as well. > > I agree. >> >> HR text re-proposed by CS would almost be expected and more >> noticeable for its absence, I would think. If if goes nowhere in MAG >> well at least we tried. > > I agree here as well. The HR section is a matter of wording rather than > a substantial issue. We can get it accepted by MAG if we take into > account the objection of MAG members who take issue with rights based > approaches and resort to language instead that circumvents this conflict. > > jeanette >> >> Lee >> >> >> ________________________________________ From: McTim >> [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 05, 2010 1:50 PM To: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: OFFLIST:Re: >> [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius >> >> Ginger. >> >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 8:58 PM, Ginger Paque >> wrote: >>> Hi everyone... I just got in to Geneva, and see that there have >>> been no responses to this. Jeremy, if it is ok with you, I think we >>> should follow up on Parminder's proposal. >> >> I think 6 hours is a bit hasty to make such a judgement. Our charter >> does not say that "Silence equals consent". >> >> I am ok with Bill's formulation, but don't think we have time to >> debate the addition of additional text. While I am all for NN and >> Open Internet, we can't agree amongst ourselves if we should phrase >> it Open Internet or NN, so I think we should leave it out for now. >> It doesn't seem to be global concern, but primarily a US c issue. >> Perhaps I've missed some NN issues coming from other countries. >> >> I am of the opinion that since we failed on the Human Rights theme >> last time, we should not try it again. I do trust Bill's analysis >> re: the acceptance of a DA as a ripe topic. I think we will hurt our >> chances if we includes the Human Rights theme as we did previously. >> >> -- Cheers, >> >> McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it >> is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel >> >> >> >>> Parminder: can you write up the actual wording for your proposal? I >>> think it is better if it comes from someone in the list. If you and >>> Jeremy agree, we can post: >>> >>> Parminder, since there have been no comments, please post your >>> proposed wording as soon as possible. We will then open for >>> comments and call for consensus... unfortunately probably 24h and >>> 24h due to time constraints. >>> >>> Can you guys please try to get back to me asap? >>> >>> Thanks! Ginger >>> >>> Parminder wrote: >>> >>> I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take >>> this language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ >>> Open Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights >>> and principles' in the list, abstract a short para on it from the >>> earlier statement which is relatively not very sharp, and in size >>> no longer than the paras on dev agenda and NN. We shd put it out >>> for a day or so of last comments and then a final version for a >>> consensus call over 48 hours. >>> >>> In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour >>> workshops on the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized >>> last year, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these >>> themes within the IGF context. And if 'internet rights and >>> principles' is included as a main theme, that the DC on IRP has >>> been doing good work in this area for considerable time now, an dis >>> in fact the most active dynamic coalition (the much celebrated >>> concept in the IGF). >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> William Drake wrote: >>> >>> Hi With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we >>> are proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea. >>> In the event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for >>> Hyderabad, and we really can't use it anymore, it's dated. On Feb >>> 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote: >>> >>> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key >>> focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. Development >>> also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio >>> conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted >>> significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet >>> governance mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop >>> was organized by civil society actors in collaboration with the >>> Swiss government, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and other >>> partners from all stakeholder groupings on, ³Toward a Development >>> Agenda for Internet Governance.² The workshop considered the >>> options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and action >>> that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet >>> governance decision making processes. Attendees at this workshop >>> expressed strong interest in further work on the topic being >>> pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda >>> concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that >>> this would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. >>> We also support the Swiss government¹s proposal to consider >>> establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop >>> recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. >>> >>> How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive >>> thrust of what was previously agreed: A Development Agenda for >>> Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda >>> and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed >>> as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a >>> broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance >>> for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational >>> terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a >>> main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and >>> some its members have organized workshops or produced position >>> papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could >>> entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el >>> Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. >>> The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages >>> between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and >>> consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into >>> IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. >>> We also continue to support the Swiss government¹'s proposal to >>> consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could >>> develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. Bill >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 5 20:41:14 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 07:11:14 +0530 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> References: <8BBA79B95A224FD89789F9CD2ED4C76A@userPC> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A02F65DA@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> <4B6857A6.3080601@itforchange.net> <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everyone... I just got in to Geneva, and see that there have been > no responses to this. Jeremy, if it is ok with you, I think we should > follow up on Parminder's proposal. > > Parminder: can you write up the actual wording for your proposal? I > think it is better if it comes from someone in the list. If you and > Jeremy agree, we can post: > > Parminder, since there have been no comments, please post your > proposed wording as soon as possible. Ginger/ Jeremy/ All, See if the following works. (At the airport, leaving for Geneva. So wont be able to comment any further throughout the day.) (proposed statement begins) IGC proposes three themes for main sessions for IGF Vilnius: Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Internet Rights and Principles It is significant to note that on the themes of Network Neutrality and Development Agenda workshops have been organized in a few earlier IGFs, including 3 hour workshops on both of these themes at IGF Sharm.Thus, the two topics have considerable maturity within the IGF, while constituting important issues requiring urgent attention of the global IG community. The dynamic coalition on Internet rights and principles is one of the most active DC and has done good work in the area of IRP. Including IRP as a main theme, apart from the theme's intrinsic importance, will be a good way to mainstreaming the work of DCs in the IGF. A brief description of the three proposed themes is given below: Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. This main session will examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government''s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. Internet rights and principles A main session on 'Internet rights and principles' would explore a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. While it is relatively easy to articulate and claim "rights" it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in looking at 'internet rights and principles'. The IGC affirms it support and assistance to develop main sessions based on these themes, and look forward to a fruitful and purposeful IGF Vilnius. (Statements ends) Parminder > We will then open for comments and call for consensus... unfortunately > probably 24h and 24h due to time constraints. > > Can you guys please try to get back to me asap? > > Thanks! > Ginger > > Parminder wrote: >> I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take >> this language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ >> Open Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights and >> principles' in the list, abstract a short para on it from the earlier >> statement which is relatively not very sharp, and in size no longer >> than the paras on dev agenda and NN. We shd put it out for a day or >> so of last comments and then a final version for a consensus call >> over 48 hours. >> >> In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour workshops >> on the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized last year, >> which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within >> the IGF context. And if 'internet rights and principles' is included >> as a main theme, that the DC on IRP has been doing good work in this >> area for considerable time now, an dis in fact the most active >> dynamic coalition (the much celebrated concept in the IGF). >> >> Parminder >> >> William Drake wrote: >>> Hi >>> >>> With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we are >>> proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea. In >>> the event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for >>> Hyderabad, and we really can't use it anymore, it's dated. >>> >>> On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote: >>> >>>> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >>>> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate >>>> for the IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting >>>> theme of the Athens and Rio conferences, but neither featured a >>>> main session that devoted significant, focused attention to the >>>> linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and >>>> development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil >>>> society actors in collaboration with the Swiss government, >>>> Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and other partners from >>>> all stakeholder groupings on, "Toward a Development Agenda for >>>> Internet Governance." The workshop considered the options for >>>> establishing a holistic program of analysis and action that >>>> would help mainstream development considerations into Internet >>>> governance decision making processes. >>>> Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further >>>> work on the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe >>>> the Development Agenda concept should be taken up in a main >>>> session at Hyderabad, and that this would be of keen interest >>>> to a great many participants there. We also support the Swiss >>>> government's proposal to consider establishing a >>>> multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop >>>> recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. >>>> >>> >>> How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive >>> thrust of what was previously agreed: >>> >>> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >>> >>> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for >>> the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting >>> theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive >>> and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development >>> (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address >>> this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A >>> Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members >>> have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating >>> different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of >>> the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew >>> our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius >>> could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance >>> mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming >>> development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet >>> governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support >>> the Swiss government''s proposal to consider establishing a >>> multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations >>> to the IGF on a development agenda. >>> >>> Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Feb 5 22:39:11 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 06:39:11 +0300 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> References: <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Here is my take on all this, On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Parminder wrote: > > Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the > Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes > the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social > activities. This main session will examine the implication of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet > policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet > architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. >  But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of > IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing > dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in > conceptual and operational terms.  To address this gap, the IGC previously > has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet > Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced > position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could > entail.   In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh > cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme.  The dialogue at > Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance > mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming > development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance > processes, as appropriate.  We also continue to support the > Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder > Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development > agenda. > Internet rights and principles > > A main session on 'Internet rights and principles' would explore a > rights-based Jeannette said: "The HR section is a matter of wording rather than a substantial issue. We can get it accepted by MAG if we take into account the objection of MAG members who take issue with rights based approaches and resort to language instead that circumvents this conflict." It seems that the above formulation does not avoid that conflict. discourse in the area of Internet Governance. While it is > relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult > to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights > claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be > uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual > situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often > undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. I can't parse this sentence. > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. Internet governance has up to > this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on > the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the > Internet bec > oming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an > alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in > looking at 'internet rights and principles'. Hmmm, in the para on NN, statement reads: "Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet." I assume this "technical principle" is meant as a "good thing". In the HR section however we say something that seems to me to be contradictory. If my paraphrasing is incorrect, please let me know but it seems we want to say "technical principles were used in the past, but now we want it based on HR instead" Can we realistically ask to have it both ways? In any event there are some process issues that we need to consider for the future. Here is a timeline of how we got to this point AFAICS: Jan 29th Jeremy asked us to get to work on a statement, (which is what a coordinator should do BTW) Jan 31st I floated a trial balloon Feb 1st I posted a draft, which got some (limited support) and Yehuda asked for a call on it (which I thought was premature) Feb 5 BD posts a second statement, which draws one comment with suggested amendments. 6 hours later, (in a seemingly offlist communique) we are asked to make up some new text based on that single comment so that we can have 24hrs of discussion and then a call for consensus for 24hrs. I realise that our charter leaves a great deal of latitude in how things get drafted, but this process strikes me as incredibly messy. I am afraid that if we continue with "seat of the pants" decision making, appeals will arise. How do we formalise procedures so that we all know what to expect when it comes to statements? Does this require changes to the charter? -- 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 Sat Feb 6 01:58:48 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 14:58:48 +0800 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 06/02/2010, at 5:10 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I agree all three should go forward. > > We can also circumvent a consensus call and formal statement with language > such as "members of civil society would like to suggest three possible main > session themes" and by using the language generally agreed to either > beforehand and on this list without formally adopting new statements as > such. I concur, these were my thoughts also. It would seem a little early to "give up" on the human rights theme, simply because certain governments will continue opposing it. They will continue to resist recognising human rights in their own countries too, but that's rather the point of activism, isn't it? My apologies for not contributing further to this discussion as I am currently travelling in Borneo, and will be travelling again next week, so I won't be able to attend the open consultation meeting. But my best wishes to Ginger and the others who will be there. -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Sat Feb 6 05:36:05 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sat, 06 Feb 2010 08:36:05 -0200 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B6D4615.6060705@cafonso.ca> Not just architectural (which in itself is broader than just technical), but also ethical and directly related to the right to communicate -- the main reasons for bringing it to IGF as a main theme. One of the ten "Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet in Brazil" formulated by CGI.br says: "Network neutrality -- Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment." --c.a. McTim wrote: > Here is my take on all this, > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > >> Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet >> >> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the >> Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes >> the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social >> activities. This main session will examine the implication of this >> principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet >> policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet >> architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. >> >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. >> But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of >> IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing >> dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in >> conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously >> has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet >> Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced >> position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could >> entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh >> cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at >> Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance >> mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming >> development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance >> processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the >> Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder >> Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development >> agenda. >> Internet rights and principles >> >> A main session on 'Internet rights and principles' would explore a >> rights-based > > Jeannette said: > > "The HR section is a matter of wording rather than a substantial > issue. We can get it accepted by MAG if we take into account the > objection of MAG members who take issue with rights based approaches > and resort to language instead that circumvents this conflict." > > It seems that the above formulation does not avoid that conflict. > > > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. While it is >> relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult >> to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights >> claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be >> uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual >> situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often >> undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. > > I can't parse this sentence. > >> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to >> explicitly discuss and debate these problems. Internet governance has up to >> this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on >> the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the >> Internet bec >> oming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an >> alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in >> looking at 'internet rights and principles'. > > Hmmm, in the para on NN, statement reads: > > "Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet." I assume this "technical principle" is meant as a > "good thing". In the HR section however we say something that seems > to me to be contradictory. If my paraphrasing is incorrect, please > let me know but it seems we want to say "technical principles were > used in the past, but now we want it based on HR instead" Can we > realistically ask to have it both ways? > > > In any event there are some process issues that we need to consider > for the future. Here is a timeline of how we got to this point > AFAICS: > > Jan 29th Jeremy asked us to get to work on a statement, (which is what > a coordinator should do BTW) > > Jan 31st I floated a trial balloon > > Feb 1st I posted a draft, which got some (limited support) and Yehuda > asked for a call on it (which I thought was premature) > > Feb 5 BD posts a second statement, which draws one comment with > suggested amendments. 6 hours later, (in a seemingly offlist > communique) we are asked to make up some new text based on that single > comment so that we can have 24hrs of discussion and then a call for > consensus for 24hrs. > > I realise that our charter leaves a great deal of latitude in how > things get drafted, but this process strikes me as incredibly messy. > I am afraid that if we continue with "seat of the pants" decision > making, appeals will arise. > > How do we formalise procedures so that we all know what to expect when > it comes to statements? Does this require changes to the charter? > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 6 14:00:51 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 00:30:51 +0530 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> McTim We may not much more time for this, but if your problem, as I read it, is that you think our statement seems to jettison considerations of technical principles in favour of 'internet rights and principles', which is of course not at all meant, we can change the concerned sentence a bit, basically removing the term 'alternative'. "Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in looking at 'internet rights and principles'." may be changed to "Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG." we will need to put this for consensus call in the next 12 hours, if it has to be read out on 9th in the open consultations. Parminder McTim wrote: > Here is my take on all this, > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > > >> Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet >> >> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the >> Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes >> the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social >> activities. This main session will examine the implication of this >> principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet >> policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet >> architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. >> >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. >> But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of >> IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing >> dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in >> conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously >> has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet >> Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced >> position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could >> entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh >> cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at >> Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance >> mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming >> development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance >> processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the >> Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder >> Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development >> agenda. >> Internet rights and principles >> >> A main session on 'Internet rights and principles' would explore a >> rights-based >> > > Jeannette said: > > "The HR section is a matter of wording rather than a substantial > issue. We can get it accepted by MAG if we take into account the > objection of MAG members who take issue with rights based approaches > and resort to language instead that circumvents this conflict." > > It seems that the above formulation does not avoid that conflict. > > > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. While it is > >> relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult >> to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights >> claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be >> uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual >> situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often >> undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. >> > > I can't parse this sentence. > > >> These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to >> explicitly discuss and debate these problems. Internet governance has up to >> this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on >> the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the >> Internet bec >> oming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an >> alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in >> looking at 'internet rights and principles'. >> > > Hmmm, in the para on NN, statement reads: > > "Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet." I assume this "technical principle" is meant as a > "good thing". In the HR section however we say something that seems > to me to be contradictory. If my paraphrasing is incorrect, please > let me know but it seems we want to say "technical principles were > used in the past, but now we want it based on HR instead" Can we > realistically ask to have it both ways? > > > In any event there are some process issues that we need to consider > for the future. Here is a timeline of how we got to this point > AFAICS: > > Jan 29th Jeremy asked us to get to work on a statement, (which is what > a coordinator should do BTW) > > Jan 31st I floated a trial balloon > > Feb 1st I posted a draft, which got some (limited support) and Yehuda > asked for a call on it (which I thought was premature) > > Feb 5 BD posts a second statement, which draws one comment with > suggested amendments. 6 hours later, (in a seemingly offlist > communique) we are asked to make up some new text based on that single > comment so that we can have 24hrs of discussion and then a call for > consensus for 24hrs. > > I realise that our charter leaves a great deal of latitude in how > things get drafted, but this process strikes me as incredibly messy. > I am afraid that if we continue with "seat of the pants" decision > making, appeals will arise. > > How do we formalise procedures so that we all know what to expect when > it comes to statements? Does this require changes to the charter? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Sat Feb 6 16:06:55 2010 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:06:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting 8 p.m. February 8th, GENEVA In-Reply-To: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> References: <4B673E70.3070103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <609019df1002061306x5e3bc752q34429bcb0824a574@mail.gmail.com> Dear All: I am planning to be there but my flight timing is stiil not confirmed. Please count me in. Regards, Qusai Al-Shatti On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > William Drake said: > > Les Brasseurs http://www.les-brasseurs.ch/news/geneve/index.htm is generally > very crowded, could be even on a Monday night.  If you're thinking people > will stand around at the bar drinking there's no problem, if you want to > have a meeting and/or eat we'd need a head count and to reserve the room on > the side as in years past, if available. > So far we have 11 people confirmed for an IGC meeting on Monday evening, > February 8th at Les-Brasseurs, across Rue de Lausanne from Cornavin. > > Can anyone else join us  for this planning session?  ( OC on Tuesday morning > ) Please confirm to me by email offlist. > > Best, > gp > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sat Feb 6 20:07:03 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:07:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] Youth Coalition on Internet Governance Message-ID: Hello All, On behalf of the new Youth Coalition on Internet Governance, we want to share the statement for Open Consultations with all member of IGC and to have the endorsement of the group in order to show the support of the youth involvement on Internet governance, please find below the statement text and please feel free to share your feedback and comments. we will be happy also to have people joining us and of course everybody is welcome. " We are happy to announce that the new Youth Coalition on Internet Governance is officially launched and we would like to share this information with all participants of the open consultations. The coalition is the main outcome of the workshop organized at IGF Egypt : "Youth and Internet Governance: the way forward". We would like to invite people from the IG community to join our effort and the coalition. As a new coalition, we will be glad to cooperate with the IG community and existing dynamic coalitions. We hope to help individuals and organizations interested or involved on youth issues to coordinate their efforts and foster more effective participation and involvement of youth on IG community and IGF. Our current homepage is http://groups.google.com/group/ycig and we would like to invite everybody to visit it. we would like to emphasize some proposals with the following recommendations: *1. Ensure presence of young people in all relevant panels and workshops, including the main sessions.* Preparing the young generation in the digital age is indeed a shared responsibility, as the Honorary Country Host Session in Egypt was titled. This not only means to talk about young people, but to discuss the relevant themes with them. Internet is a fairly new phenomenon and, first and foremost, a world of the young. Children and young people have a very valuable contribution to make to debates and decision-making and therefore should have many opportunities to engage in IGF discussions. There is a real need to expand capacity building programs on IG and to extend fellowship programs addressed to youth to attend IGF and open consultations and participate in IG discussions with full-capacity. *2. Youth are key players of Internet Governance and should be considered stakeholders, *youth participation should not be restricted to specific issues and young participants and experts should be involved in all IG discussions and debates. We *strongly urge* the MAG to include more youth representatives with respect to gender and geographic balance. We also ask the other stakeholders and delegations attending IGF and open consultations to include more youth participants. The same request is addressed to regional and country IGFs, as well. *3. When we talk about children´s rights, it is also important to put focus on the enjoyment of the right to access to information. *At the IGF in Egypt, there were a lot of discussions on how to protect children and young people from harmful content on the internet. This is a very important issue, but discussions on children´s rights should not focus on this solely. Children and young people have – just as adults – the right to privacy and access to information and knowledge. It is important to acknowledge that children and young people do not only need to be protected, but also to be empowered to exercise their rights freely and without restrictions– both in the offline as in the online world. 4. *When talking about sexuality, also place focus on the positive impact of the internet on sexual and reproductive rights. *At the IGF in Egypt, discussions on the linkages between internet and sexuality were mostly about negative side-effects of the World Wide Web, such as the easy spread of child pornography which shouldn’t be used as argument for restrictive policies. But we have to acknowledge that the internet also has great advantages in regard to people’s sexual and reproductive rights – e.g., in terms of access to information and to knowledge, freedom of expression and openness. Yours sincerely, Youth Coalition on Internet Governance " -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Sat Feb 6 21:53:54 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:53:54 -0500 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for In-Reply-To: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> References: <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> ,<4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CC39@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Parminder's phrasing works for me. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 2:00 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim Subject: Re: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius McTim We may not much more time for this, but if your problem, as I read it, is that you think our statement seems to jettison considerations of technical principles in favour of 'internet rights and principles', which is of course not at all meant, we can change the concerned sentence a bit, basically removing the term 'alternative'. "Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in looking at 'internet rights and principles'." may be changed to "Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG." we will need to put this for consensus call in the next 12 hours, if it has to be read out on 9th in the open consultations. Parminder McTim wrote: Here is my take on all this, On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Parminder wrote: Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. This main session will examine the implication of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. Internet rights and principles A main session on 'Internet rights and principles' would explore a rights-based Jeannette said: "The HR section is a matter of wording rather than a substantial issue. We can get it accepted by MAG if we take into account the objection of MAG members who take issue with rights based approaches and resort to language instead that circumvents this conflict." It seems that the above formulation does not avoid that conflict. discourse in the area of Internet Governance. While it is relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. I can't parse this sentence. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet bec oming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in looking at 'internet rights and principles'. Hmmm, in the para on NN, statement reads: "Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet." I assume this "technical principle" is meant as a "good thing". In the HR section however we say something that seems to me to be contradictory. If my paraphrasing is incorrect, please let me know but it seems we want to say "technical principles were used in the past, but now we want it based on HR instead" Can we realistically ask to have it both ways? In any event there are some process issues that we need to consider for the future. Here is a timeline of how we got to this point AFAICS: Jan 29th Jeremy asked us to get to work on a statement, (which is what a coordinator should do BTW) Jan 31st I floated a trial balloon Feb 1st I posted a draft, which got some (limited support) and Yehuda asked for a call on it (which I thought was premature) Feb 5 BD posts a second statement, which draws one comment with suggested amendments. 6 hours later, (in a seemingly offlist communique) we are asked to make up some new text based on that single comment so that we can have 24hrs of discussion and then a call for consensus for 24hrs. I realise that our charter leaves a great deal of latitude in how things get drafted, but this process strikes me as incredibly messy. I am afraid that if we continue with "seat of the pants" decision making, appeals will arise. How do we formalise procedures so that we all know what to expect when it comes to statements? Does this require changes to the charter? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Sat Feb 6 22:49:04 2010 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 21:49:04 -0600 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CC39@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CC39@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Parmindeer's phrasing seems to work fine for me. Also, just want to inform caucus members that ISOC Philippines has also sent its statement of support to the IGF Secretariat for Internet Rights and Principles, and Remote Participation. I was wondering if anyone who is in Geneva for the OC can read it for us? Will really appreciate it. Thanks! Regards, Charity Gamboa-Embley ISOC PH Chairperson: IGF Working Group On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Parminder's phrasing works for me. > > > ________________________________________ > From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] > Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 2:00 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; McTim > Subject: Re: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for > Vilnius > > McTim > > We may not much more time for this, but if your problem, as I read it, is > that you think our statement seems to jettison considerations of technical > principles in favour of 'internet rights and principles', which is of course > not at all meant, we can change the concerned sentence a bit, basically > removing the term 'alternative'. > > > "Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored in looking at 'internet rights and > principles'." > > may be changed to > > "Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG." > > > we will need to put this for consensus call in the next 12 hours, if it has > to be read out on 9th in the open consultations. > > Parminder > > > > > > > McTim wrote: > > Here is my take on all this, > > On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > > > Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the > Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet > becomes > the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social > activities. This main session will examine the implication of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet > policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet > architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. > But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of > IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing > dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in > conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously > has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet > Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced > position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could > entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh > cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at > Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet > governance > mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming > development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance > processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the > Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder > Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a > development > agenda. > Internet rights and principles > > A main session on 'Internet rights and principles' would explore a > rights-based > > > > Jeannette said: > > "The HR section is a matter of wording rather than a substantial > issue. We can get it accepted by MAG if we take into account the > objection of MAG members who take issue with rights based approaches > and resort to language instead that circumvents this conflict." > > It seems that the above formulation does not avoid that conflict. > > > discourse in the area of Internet Governance. While it is > > > relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult > to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights > claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be > uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual > situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often > undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. > > > > I can't parse this sentence. > > > > These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to > explicitly discuss and debate these problems. Internet governance has up to > this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, > on > the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the > Internet bec > oming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an > alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in > looking at 'internet rights and principles'. > > > > Hmmm, in the para on NN, statement reads: > > "Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet." I assume this "technical principle" is meant as a > "good thing". In the HR section however we say something that seems > to me to be contradictory. If my paraphrasing is incorrect, please > let me know but it seems we want to say "technical principles were > used in the past, but now we want it based on HR instead" Can we > realistically ask to have it both ways? > > > In any event there are some process issues that we need to consider > for the future. Here is a timeline of how we got to this point > AFAICS: > > Jan 29th Jeremy asked us to get to work on a statement, (which is what > a coordinator should do BTW) > > Jan 31st I floated a trial balloon > > Feb 1st I posted a draft, which got some (limited support) and Yehuda > asked for a call on it (which I thought was premature) > > Feb 5 BD posts a second statement, which draws one comment with > suggested amendments. 6 hours later, (in a seemingly offlist > communique) we are asked to make up some new text based on that single > comment so that we can have 24hrs of discussion and then a call for > consensus for 24hrs. > > I realise that our charter leaves a great deal of latitude in how > things get drafted, but this process strikes me as incredibly messy. > I am afraid that if we continue with "seat of the pants" decision > making, appeals will arise. > > How do we formalise procedures so that we all know what to expect when > it comes to statements? Does this require changes to the charter? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Charity Gamboa-Embley Student Alternatives Program, Inc - South Plains Academy 4008 Avenue R Lubbock, Texas 79412 Phone: +1 (806) 744 0330 Fax: +1 (806) 741 1089 http://www.stdsapi.com/ cembley at esc17.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Feb 6 23:37:15 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 07:37:15 +0300 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> References: <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: All. On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 10:00 PM, Parminder wrote: > McTim > > We may not much more time for this, but if your problem, as I read it, is > that you think our statement seems to jettison considerations of technical > principles in favour of 'internet rights and principles', I have numerous "problems" with it, more below. which is of course > not at all meant, we can change the concerned sentence a bit, basically > removing the term 'alternative'. > > "Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. It's more social, than economic IMO. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual > framework for IG can be explored in looking at 'internet rights and > principles'." > > may be changed to > > "Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. How about: "Internet governance has up to this time largely been focused on technical aspects, increasingly however, social and economic issues are gaining prominence in Internet governance discussions. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, I'd rather: With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many aspects of life" and cut " social and political institutions," we are of the view that a consideration > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG." I still don't know what "Internet rights and principles" means. I note that the above changes do not address the "rights-based" discourse text that Jeannette warned us about. I have no idea what this means either: "The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. " What is the purpose of this sentence? -- 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 Sun Feb 7 01:17:26 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:47:26 +0530 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> McTim wrote: > >> of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more >> comprehensive conceptual framework for IG." >> > > I still don't know what "Internet rights and principles" means. > It is difficult to get into that discussion now... w e have done it earlier often and the caucus seems to have overwhelmingly endorsed the concept. Now if at the last moment of trying a statement you say you dont know what it means, not much can I do about it. Thats the very name of the proposed theme, and i think it was proposed in a couple of statements last year, in fact, i think as the overarching theme of the IGF itself.. > I note that the above changes do not address the "rights-based" > discourse text that Jeannette warned us about. > > I have no idea what this means either: "The change in the technical > methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings > of how to apply legal categories. " > Simple. That as HR extra texts are written at present, they may need to be reinterpreted in their application to the current situation where new means of communication are bringing about far reaching changes at many levels... It is up to the coordinators now to put the text for consensus call or not - and do it without the part of 'internet rights and principles' or with it. I propose we propose all the three themes, since there is a standing agreement in the caucus about them. But the call must go out now. Otherwise it will be too late. Also ,McTim, as per your last email raising process issues, I think you are trying to apply methods of technical elists to the working of this group. The subjects, contexts and thus the methods may have to be very different here.... Parminder > What is the purpose of this sentence? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 02:51:24 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:51:24 +0300 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Parminder wrote: > > > > McTim wrote: > > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG." > > > I still don't know what "Internet rights and principles" means. > > > It is difficult to get into that discussion now... w e have done it earlier > often and the caucus seems to have overwhelmingly endorsed the concept. Now > if at the last moment of trying a statement you say you dont know what it > means, not much can I do about it. Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't find a definition of it in any of them. Thats the very name of the proposed > theme, and i think it was proposed in a couple of statements last year, in > fact, i think as the overarching theme of the IGF itself.. Correct, and not chosen by the MAG/Secretariat IIRC for political reasons. I don't see that the climate has changed, but certainly could be wrong. Jeannette warned us about this, I don't think she is wrong. > > I note that the above changes do not address the "rights-based" > discourse text that Jeannette warned us about. We have to know that including this means possible (near certain?) failure. Do we want to tilt at this particular windmill now? > > I have no idea what this means either: "The change in the technical > methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings > of how to apply legal categories. " > > > Simple. That as HR extra texts are written at present, they may need to be > reinterpreted in their application to the current situation where new means > of communication are bringing about far reaching changes at many levels... > > It is up to the coordinators now to put the text for consensus call or not - > and do it without the part of 'internet rights and principles' or with it. I > propose we propose all the three themes, since there is a standing agreement > in the caucus about them. But the call must go out now. Otherwise it will be > too late. > > Also ,McTim, as per your last email raising process issues, I think you are > trying to apply methods of technical elists to the working of this group. I'm trying to apply Best Practices in IG, learned over decades of experience by the people who have been doing it. Are you suggesting that we abandon openness, transparency, etc? The fact remains that a proposal was posted to the list, had some support, and even had one member ask for a consensus call on it. The coordinators should have judged that it was ripe for consensus or not and shared that with the list. This was not done, opening up the possibility of an appeal. > The subjects, contexts and thus the methods may have to be very different I would not want us to abandon BP in IG for any reason. -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Feb 7 04:36:41 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 10:36:41 +0100 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: > Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was defined? > I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't find a > definition of it in any of them. McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support here. The latter trumps the former, so it should be included in the statement. Best, Bill____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 06:40:17 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:10:17 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday. Message-ID: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Hello all, I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on Tuesday. With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent suggestion. An all agreement vote would read: 1: Yes 2: Yes 3: Yes Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. 1. Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. 2. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. 3. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. Thank you very much. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Feb 7 06:51:58 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 11:51:58 +0000 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: > >> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was >> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't >> find a definition of it in any of them. > > McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and > underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the > caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support > here. The latter trumps the former, Why? Majority trumps reason? so it should be included in the > statement. Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would work? jeanette > > Best, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 07:01:34 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 07:31:34 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting Les Brasseurs, Geneva, Feb. 08 7:30 p.m. Message-ID: <4B6EAB9E.30109@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 07:03:35 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:03:35 +0300 Subject: [governance] Re: Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday. In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: 1. yes 2. yes 3. NO -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should > allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva > Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we > have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the > meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as > possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read > together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. > The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent > suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy > in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture > are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of > the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been > posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a > broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for > Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms.  To > address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A > Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have > organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different > visions of what such an agenda could entail.   In light of the related > discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main > session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify > the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing > a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and > productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic > Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the > Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 07:05:34 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:05:34 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGC meeting Les Brasseurs, Geneva, Feb. 08 7:30 p.m. In-Reply-To: <4B6EAB9E.30109@gmail.com> References: <4B6EAB9E.30109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71002070405g7f80ffck1983bcd93951aa0c@mail.gmail.com> I will be making it there around 8:30-8:45pm as I'll be coming from France tomorrow night. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Avri > Hello everyone, > I show 16 people for our meeting Monday evening at Les Brasseurs (see list > below, and please let me and/or Bill know offlist if there are any additions > or changes). I will be there just before 7:30 p.m. > > Everyone is welcome, and encouraged to join us in person or online. Barring > unforeseen complications, the Les Brasseurs should have  Wi-Fi Internet, and > I will have my computer, watching both email and Skype.  My Skype login is > gingerpaque. > > Best, Ginger > > > Fouad > Hartmut > Ginger > Roland > Calros Afonso > Bill Drake and Wife > Parminder > Katitza > Milton 9 pm > Willie Currie > Lisa Horner... > Graciela Saleiman > Wolfgang 11 pm > Brendon Kuerbis > Qusai Al-Shatti -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 7 07:14:16 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 17:44:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> Yes to all... Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am > now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. > This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting > here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and > connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email > or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with > as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be > read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the > order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of > Parminder's recent suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with > the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of > the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of > this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for > Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the > Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the > Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key > focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while > development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, > they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on > what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in > conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC > previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for > Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or > produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an > agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the > Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this > theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the > linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider > establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop > recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s > functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet > becoming increasingly central to many social and political > institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet > rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive > conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents > a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. > These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done > dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the > concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address > this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ceo at bnnrc.net Sun Feb 7 07:20:16 2010 From: ceo at bnnrc.net (AHM Bazlur Rahman) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 18:20:16 +0600 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <1EBFAFF01EAB4034AE46F8CBF7268B19@ceo> Dear Ginger, YES to all. With best wishes, Bazlu _______________________ AHM. Bazlur Rahman-S21BR Chief Executive Officer Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication(BNNRC) & Member, Strategy Council UN-Global Alliance for ICT and Development (UN GAID) House: 13/1, Road:2, Shaymoli, Dhaka-1207 Post Box: 5095, Dhaka 1205 Bangladesh Phone: 88-02-9130750, 88-02-9138501 01711881647 Fax: 88-02-9138501-105 E-mail: ceo at bnnrc.net, bnnrc at bd.drik.net www.bnnrc.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Parminder To: governance at lists.cpsr.org ; Ginger Paque Cc: William Drake ; lee.hibbard at coe.int ; Jeremy Malcolm ; Ian Peter ; McTim Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 6:14 PM Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 Yes to all... Ginger Paque wrote: Hello all, I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on Tuesday. With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent suggestion. An all agreement vote would read: 1: Yes 2: Yes 3: Yes Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. 1. Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. 2. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. 3. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. Thank you very much. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Sun Feb 7 07:22:28 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:22:28 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until In-Reply-To: <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <20100207122257.6ED93919C3@npogroups.org> If this is for all in the list, my consent is YES to all. Best regards, Hakikur Rahman At 12:14 07-02-2010, Parminder wrote: >Yes to all... > >Ginger Paque wrote: >>Hello all, >>I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination >>of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am >>now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for >>the OC on Tuesday. >> >>With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am >>now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. >>This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ >>meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with >>me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you >>can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a >>consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. >> >>I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can >>be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in >>the order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of >>Parminder's recent suggestion. >> >>An all agreement vote would read: >>1: Yes >>2: Yes >>3: Yes >> >>Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. >> >>1. >>Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for >>the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the >>Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all >>business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session >>with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All >>Layers of the Internet. This main session should examine the >>implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary >>interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues >>about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly >>manifest in all layers of the Internet today. >> >>2. >>A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key >>focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while >>development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF >>meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing >>dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might >>mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the >>IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda >>for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized >>workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions >>of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related >>discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for >>a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter >>alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms >>and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development >>considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance >>processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss >>government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder >>Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a >>development agenda. >> >>3. >>Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in >>technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet's >>functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet >>becoming increasingly central to many social and political >>institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet >>rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more >>comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. >> >> >>In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of >>a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which >>represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the >>IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be >>build upon in 2010. >> >>The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done >>dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the >>concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address >>this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. >>Thank you very much. >>Best, >>Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Feb 7 07:43:01 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 13:43:01 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0681A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Yes for all three wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Gesendet: So 07.02.2010 12:40 An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; William Drake; Parminder; lee.hibbard at coe.int; Jeremy Malcolm; Ian Peter; McTim Betreff: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday. Hello all, I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on Tuesday. With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown.. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent suggestion. An all agreement vote would read: 1: Yes 2: Yes 3: Yes Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. 1. Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet.. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. 2. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. 3. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. Thank you very much. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 07:48:03 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:48:03 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0681A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0681A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Yes to all. But Ginger I think it would help if you would reinstate the titles of the proposals... Bill On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Yes for all three > > wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Gesendet: So 07.02.2010 12:40 > An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; William Drake; Parminder; lee.hibbard at coe.int; Jeremy Malcolm; Ian Peter; McTim > Betreff: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday. > > > > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown.. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet.. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. > > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Feb 7 07:52:42 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:52:42 -0200 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B6EB79A.2090507@cafonso.ca> ... which is also the problem of DA (development agenda) and several others. What we seek is to ensure the space to precisely provide more focus, deepen the debate and above all keep the underlying problems in the IGF main agenda. IMHO --c.a. William Drake wrote: > Hi > > On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: > >> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was defined? >> I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't find a >> definition of it in any of them. > > McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support here. The latter trumps the former, so it should be included in the statement. > > Best, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 07:59:06 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 08:29:06 -0430 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From guru at itforchange.net Sun Feb 7 08:45:36 2010 From: guru at itforchange.net (=?UTF-8?B?R3VydSDgpJfgpYHgpLDgpYE=?=) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:15:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6EC400.7070304@itforchange.net> Yes to all Liberating our public software - http://beta.thehindu.com/news/cities/Bangalore/article100889.ece Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am > now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. > This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting > here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and > connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email > or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with > as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be > read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the > order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of > Parminder's recent suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with > the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of > the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of > this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for > Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the > Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the > Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key > focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while > development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, > they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on > what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in > conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC > previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for > Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or > produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an > agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the > Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this > theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the > linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider > establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop > recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s > functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet > becoming increasingly central to many social and political > institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet > rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive > conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents > a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. > These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done > dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the > concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address > this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 08:53:27 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:53:27 -0500 Subject: AW: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until In-Reply-To: References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0681A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Yes to #1 and #3 for me. On #1, would prefer that the "openness at all layers of the internet" phrase, which provides a fat, easy target for any policy-aware technical person, be changed to "ensuring the openness of the Internet." But may be beyond the point of such modifications; its been hard to keep up with this discussion so I offer my acceptance on practical grounds if it can't be changed. On #2, the theme as presented is not all that bad, but many of you may be familiar with my belief in the bankruptcy of the development industry and development rhetoric as a path toward actual economic and social growth, and whatever the content or intent of our proposal I believe that such a theme, if accepted, would inevitably gravitate toward and reinforce those older themes (especially given the likelihood the other 2 themes will be vetoed). On #3, it seems we are still discussing verbal modifications, so I express my general support for the theme and the principles and trust our hard-working coordinators to work something out in time. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:48 AM > To: Governance List > Cc: Ginger Paque > Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until > 10 p.m > > Yes to all. > > But Ginger I think it would help if you would reinstate the titles of the > proposals... > > Bill > > On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > > Yes for all three > > > > wolfgang > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Von: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > Gesendet: So 07.02.2010 12:40 > > An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; William Drake; Parminder; > lee.hibbard at coe.int; Jeremy Malcolm; Ian Peter; McTim > > Betreff: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 > p.m GMT Monday. > > > > > > > > Hello all, > > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This > should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in > Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected > (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype > during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many > voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be > read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order > shown.. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent > suggestion. > > > > An all agreement vote would read: > > 1: Yes > > 2: Yes > > 3: Yes > > > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > > > 1. > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet.. This main session should examine the implications of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet > policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet > architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > > > 2. > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus > of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has > been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not > featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet > Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational > terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main > session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its > members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating > different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the > related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call > for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter > alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and > development, and consider options for mainstreaming development > considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as > appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal > to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could > develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. > > > > 3. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet's functionality as > a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly > central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that > a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis > for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic > and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of > Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part > of the Vilnius agenda. > > > > Thank you very much. > > Best, > > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 08:53:41 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:23:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should > allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva > Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we > have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the > meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as > possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read > together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. > The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent > suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy > in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture > are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > Yes > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of > the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been > posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a > broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for > Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To > address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A > Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have > organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different > visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related > discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main > session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify > the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing > a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > Yes > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. No > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic > and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic > Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the > Vilnius agenda. > > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Feb 7 09:03:23 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:03:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6EC82B.3040801@wzb.eu> Yes to all three, although I find it unfortunate if we stick to the rights and principles language which will get us nowhere. jeanette Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This > should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in > Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected > (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype > during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many > voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be > read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the > order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's > recent suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet > policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet > architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus > of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development > has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not > featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet > Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and > operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has > advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet > Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced > position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda > could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el > Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The > dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between > Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for > mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and > Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to > support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to > the IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality > as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly > central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view > that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the > basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic > and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of > Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as > part of the Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 09:06:41 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:06:41 -0500 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for In-Reply-To: References: <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] > I have no idea what this means either: "The change in the technical > methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings > of how to apply legal categories. " > > What is the purpose of this sentence? It's badly phrased, but important. It means: "The growth of the Internet has created new situations that force us to redefine how we apply existing law and how we interpret established legal rights. There are hundreds of examples, but the issue of how trademark protections apply to domain name registrations is one of easiest to invoke. Or, the way the internet undermines sovereign control of communication is another example - how does one state maintain jurisdiction control when things that are illegal in its jurisdiction are available to its citizens but in another jurisidction. This is why it is essential to frame the discourse around the concept of "rights". Even people who believe that states should have the power to suppress all kinds of individual rights must recognize that Internet capabilities shuffle the deck and require all kinds of adjustments in how we interpret and apply legal rights. --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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Feb 7 09:09:36 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:09:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss it - at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased enough so that we can better make an issue of it. Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. --MM ________________________________ From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) Jeanette Hofmann wrote: "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would work? " I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope we can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at Les Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address IRP. If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to consider: legal provisions (Jeanette) Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance Internet governance and the position of individuals Internet governance and individuals gp Jeanette Hofmann wrote: William Drake wrote: Hi On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't find a definition of it in any of them. McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support here. The latter trumps the former, Why? Majority trumps reason? so it should be included in the statement. Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would work? jeanette Best, Bill____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Feb 7 09:18:29 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 06:18:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: 4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com Message-ID: Vote: 1: Yes - NN 2: Yes - DA 3: NO - HR ('internet rights and principles') ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Feb 7 09:18:55 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:18:55 +0000 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B6ECBCF.8030008@wzb.eu> Milton L Mueller wrote: > Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss > it – at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. > > Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased > enough so that we can better make an issue of it. > > Instead of using “alternate wording” on the vain hope that > authoritarians can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse > on individual rights, This is not about tricking someone into participation. use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that > everyone knows what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. it is also not about scandalizing something that is well-known anyway to all who have attended the open consultations or have read the transcripts. There is nothing new here and nothing we havn't known for years. The question is whether we want to be right on rights or if we want to create the conditions that would allow us to address them in a main session. jeanette > > > > --MM > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > *Cc:* William Drake; McTim; Parminder > *Subject:* [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main > session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as > Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps > more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot > think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as > 'legal provisions' would work? " > > I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. > However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope > we can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting > at Les Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other > stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to > address IRP. > > If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to > consider: > > legal provisions (Jeanette) > Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance > Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance > Internet governance and the position of individuals > Internet governance and individuals > > gp > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: > > > Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was > defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't > find a definition of it in any of them. > > > McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and > underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the > caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support > here. The latter trumps the former, > > > Why? Majority trumps reason? > > so it should be included in the > > statement. > > > Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main > session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as > Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps > more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot > think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as > 'legal provisions' would work? > > jeanette > > > Best, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be > removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From goldstein.roxana at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 09:20:29 2010 From: goldstein.roxana at gmail.com (Roxana Goldstein) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:20:29 -0300 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4ca4162f1002070620u4e3c5268gaeacfec0fbed969c@mail.gmail.com> Mi vote: 1. yes 2. yes 3. yes Thanks Ginger, Best regards, Roxana 2010/2/7 Parminder > Yes to all... > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should > allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva > Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we > have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the > meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as > possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read > together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. > The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent > suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy > in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture > are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of > the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been > posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a > broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for > Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To > address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A > Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have > organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different > visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related > discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main > session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify > the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing > a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic > and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic > Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the > Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 7 09:31:53 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:01:53 +0530 Subject: AW: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until In-Reply-To: References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0681A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4B6ECED9.4040105@itforchange.net> William Drake wrote: > Yes to all. > > But Ginger I think it would help if you would reinstate the titles of the proposals... > Agreed. and also it is good to say right at the start that we propose these three themes for main sessions, and then describe them. These kinds of adjustments can be done even after the statement has been adopted (if it indeed is), especially with one coordinator being present on the ground to take responsibility. Parminder > Bill > > On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > > >> Yes for all three >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >> Gesendet: So 07.02.2010 12:40 >> An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; William Drake; Parminder; lee.hibbard at coe.int; Jeremy Malcolm; Ian Peter; McTim >> Betreff: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday. >> >> >> >> Hello all, >> I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on Tuesday. >> >> With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. >> >> I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown.. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent suggestion. >> >> An all agreement vote would read: >> 1: Yes >> 2: Yes >> 3: Yes >> >> Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. >> >> 1. >> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for >> the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the >> Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all >> business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet.. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. >> >> 2. >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. >> >> 3. >> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet's functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. >> >> >> In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. >> >> The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. >> >> Thank you very much. >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Feb 7 09:32:28 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 09:32:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <4B6ECBCF.8030008@wzb.eu> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B6ECBCF.8030008@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Since you are on the MAG you are in the best position to propose wording that a) allows us to address rights in the main session and b) can get through the MAG. If you don't know how to square that circle then your argument is pointless. Politically, I don't agree with your analysis. We know that repressive states veto human rights in their own country and we know that they would prefer not to talk about them in standard intergovernmental organizations. But the IGF is supposed to be different. IGF has no binding power, and IGF is supposed to be multistakeholder ie we have equal status and these govts have no veto power. For certain govts (perhaps with some tacit support from businesses or technical community???) to keep us from even publicly discussing it is as scandalous and indefensible as the early refusal to handle CIR. Let's keep making an issue of it until it changes. --MM > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 9:19 AM > To: Milton L Mueller > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque; William Drake; McTim; > Parminder > Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss > > it - at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. > > > > Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased > > enough so that we can better make an issue of it. > > > > Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that > > authoritarians can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse > > on individual rights, > > > This is not about tricking someone into participation. > > use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that > > everyone knows what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. > > it is also not about scandalizing something that is well-known anyway to > all who have attended the open consultations or have read the > transcripts. There is nothing new here and nothing we havn't known for > years. > > The question is whether we want to be right on rights or if we want to > create the conditions that would allow us to address them in a main > session. > jeanette > > > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *From:* Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > *Sent:* Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > > *Cc:* William Drake; McTim; Parminder > > *Subject:* [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > > > > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main > > session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as > > Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps > > more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot > > think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as > > 'legal provisions' would work? " > > > > I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. > > However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope > > we can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting > > at Les Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other > > stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to > > address IRP. > > > > If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to > > consider: > > > > legal provisions (Jeanette) > > Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance > > Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance > > Internet governance and the position of individuals > > Internet governance and individuals > > > > gp > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > > William Drake wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was > > defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't > > find a definition of it in any of them. > > > > > > McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and > > underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the > > caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support > > here. The latter trumps the former, > > > > > > Why? Majority trumps reason? > > > > so it should be included in the > > > > statement. > > > > > > Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main > > session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as > > Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps > > more abstract wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot > > think of anything good at the moment but perhaps something such as > > 'legal provisions' would work? > > > > jeanette > > > > > > Best, > > > > Bill____________________________________________________________ You > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be > > removed from the list, send any > > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Sun Feb 7 11:11:45 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 14:11:45 -0200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6EE641.8050504@cafonso.ca> Yes to al three. Just to stress the importance of NN discussion and the theme deserving better treatment at the IGF, this is from today's El País (Madrid). In Spanish, sorry for the EN-only speakers, but shows basically what the carriers want to have -- freedom to handle traffic in any way they please, for the sake of $$$. frt rgds --c.a. http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/Telefonica/abre/fuego/buscadores/elpeputec/20100207elpeputec_1/Tes Telefónica abre fuego contra los buscadores César Alierta avisa de que la nueva "estrategia" de la compañía pasará por cobrar a Google o Yahoo por utilizar sus redes EL PAÍS - Madrid - 07/02/2010 Google, Microsoft o Yahoo "utilizan las redes de Telefónica sin pagar nada, lo cual es una suerte para ellos y una desgracia para nosotros. Pero eso no va a poder seguir, es evidente". En estos términos se ha referido en Bilbao el presidente de Telefónica, César Alierta, que este viernes lanzaba un claro aviso a los buscadores: "Las redes las ponemos nosotros, el peering lo hacemos nosotros, los sistemas los hacemos nosotros, el customer care lo hacemos nosotros, el servicio post-venta lo hacemos nosotros, el servicio de instalación lo hacemos nosotros... lo hacemos todo. Quiero decir, ellos tienen algoritmos y contenidos..." Sus declaraciones ya han encontrado eco en varios blogs y plataformas como Twitter o Menéame, donde los usuarios entienden la nueva "estrategia" de Telefónica como un modo de comenzar a cobrar por partida doble. "Es como si Fenosa o Endesa le cobrara a los fabricantes de electrodomésticos por usar la red eléctrica", sentencian. Alierta se ha referido también en su intervención a las aplicaciones que los usuarios descargan en sus terminales inteligentes, como en el caso del iPhone. El presidente de Telefónica se ha referido al "fenómeno del garaje: una oportunidad que se ha abierto para todos los chicos y chicas listos que hay en el mundo de generar aplicaciones y servicios que luego utilizan nuestras plataformas". iPhone, ha dicho, ha dado la posibilidad a todos aquellos que crean una aplicación en cualquier parte del mundo, de ofrecerla a todos los que utilizan un terminal de Apple. "Lo que va a cambiar radicalmente en los próximos meses y desde luego, este año, es que las plataformas de los operadores van a estar abiertas para que cualquiera que tenga una idea, una aplicación y un servicio la vuelque en nuestras plataformas, la vuelque en Arequipa y se pueda descargar en Madrid. Y nosotros nos llevaremos una parte de eso, evidentemente". "El chico de Arequipa", ha dicho, va a tener la suerte "de que nuestros 700 millones de clientes van a poder utilizar su aplicación en Pekín o en Berlín". Para ilustrar su idea, Alierta ha hecho un paralelismo con los mensajes de texto o SMS. "¿Por qué han funcionado bien los SMS? Porque todas las redes de todos los operadores están conectados. Esto va a pasar con las aplicaciones. Y esto va a pasar este año. Con una diferencia, que nuestro sistema es abierto y el de Apple es cerrado", esto es, "que un chico de Arequipa suba la aplicación utilizando la red de Movistar y eso se pueda descargar si tienes un Samsung, Nokia, Motorola o un HTC". Alierta ha querido insistir en que se trata de una noticia positiva para todos los implicados. Sin embargo, no todos están de acuerdo con él. "¿Qué es lo que piensan los mercados? Que de eso no vamos a ver un duro. ¿Qué es lo que pienso yo? Que están totalmente equivocados", ha añadido. "La inteligencia está en la red y las redes las tenemos nosotros". © EDICIONES EL PAÍS S.L. - Miguel Yuste 40 - 28037 Madrid [España] - Tel. 91 337 8200 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hindenburgo at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 11:28:56 2010 From: hindenburgo at gmail.com (Hindenburgo Pires) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 14:28:56 -0200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B6EE641.8050504@cafonso.ca> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EE641.8050504@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <3ef75b781002070828q6977b5d6qeba58d7205905080@mail.gmail.com> My vote is yes to all three proposals! Regards, Ginger 2010/2/7 Carlos A. Afonso > Yes to al three. Just to stress the importance of NN discussion and the > theme deserving better treatment at the IGF, this is from today's El País > (Madrid). In Spanish, sorry for the EN-only speakers, but shows basically > what the carriers want to have -- freedom to handle traffic in any way they > please, for the sake of $$$. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/Telefonica/abre/fuego/buscadores/elpeputec/20100207elpeputec_1/Tes > > Telefónica abre fuego contra los buscadores > César Alierta avisa de que la nueva "estrategia" de la compañía pasará por > cobrar a Google o Yahoo por utilizar sus redes > > EL PAÍS - Madrid - 07/02/2010 > > Google, Microsoft o Yahoo "utilizan las redes de Telefónica sin pagar nada, > lo cual es una suerte para ellos y una desgracia para nosotros. Pero eso no > va a poder seguir, es evidente". En estos términos se ha referido en Bilbao > el presidente de Telefónica, César Alierta, que este viernes lanzaba un > claro aviso a los buscadores: "Las redes las ponemos nosotros, el peering lo > hacemos nosotros, los sistemas los hacemos nosotros, el customer care lo > hacemos nosotros, el servicio post-venta lo hacemos nosotros, el servicio de > instalación lo hacemos nosotros... lo hacemos todo. Quiero decir, ellos > tienen algoritmos y contenidos..." > > Sus declaraciones ya han encontrado eco en varios blogs y plataformas como > Twitter o Menéame, donde los usuarios entienden la nueva "estrategia" de > Telefónica como un modo de comenzar a cobrar por partida doble. "Es como si > Fenosa o Endesa le cobrara a los fabricantes de electrodomésticos por usar > la red eléctrica", sentencian. > > Alierta se ha referido también en su intervención a las aplicaciones que > los usuarios descargan en sus terminales inteligentes, como en el caso del > iPhone. El presidente de Telefónica se ha referido al "fenómeno del garaje: > una oportunidad que se ha abierto para todos los chicos y chicas listos que > hay en el mundo de generar aplicaciones y servicios que luego utilizan > nuestras plataformas". iPhone, ha dicho, ha dado la posibilidad a todos > aquellos que crean una aplicación en cualquier parte del mundo, de ofrecerla > a todos los que utilizan un terminal de Apple. "Lo que va a cambiar > radicalmente en los próximos meses y desde luego, este año, es que las > plataformas de los operadores van a estar abiertas para que cualquiera que > tenga una idea, una aplicación y un servicio la vuelque en nuestras > plataformas, la vuelque en Arequipa y se pueda descargar en Madrid. Y > nosotros nos llevaremos una parte de eso, evidentemente". > > "El chico de Arequipa", ha dicho, va a tener la suerte "de que nuestros 700 > millones de clientes van a poder utilizar su aplicación en Pekín o en > Berlín". Para ilustrar su idea, Alierta ha hecho un paralelismo con los > mensajes de texto o SMS. "¿Por qué han funcionado bien los SMS? Porque todas > las redes de todos los operadores están conectados. Esto va a pasar con las > aplicaciones. Y esto va a pasar este año. Con una diferencia, que nuestro > sistema es abierto y el de Apple es cerrado", esto es, "que un chico de > Arequipa suba la aplicación utilizando la red de Movistar y eso se pueda > descargar si tienes un Samsung, Nokia, Motorola o un HTC". > > Alierta ha querido insistir en que se trata de una noticia positiva para > todos los implicados. Sin embargo, no todos están de acuerdo con él. "¿Qué > es lo que piensan los mercados? Que de eso no vamos a ver un duro. ¿Qué es > lo que pienso yo? Que están totalmente equivocados", ha añadido. "La > inteligencia está en la red y las redes las tenemos nosotros". > > © EDICIONES EL PAÍS S.L. - Miguel Yuste 40 - 28037 Madrid [España] - Tel. > 91 337 8200 > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Hindenburgo Francisco Pires Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Geografia Humana Instituto de Geografia • Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524 - 4º andar - bloco D - sala 4031 • Maracanã Rio de Janeiro - RJ, CEP: 20550-013 | tel/fax: (21) 2254-2542 / 2334-0036 / 2334-0614 http://www.cibergeo.org/artigos/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Sun Feb 7 11:32:51 2010 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 16:32:51 -0000 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B6ECBCF.8030008@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B3041@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Firstly, I vote yes to all three. Secondly, just a a quick intervention on #3... There are 2 points of contention as I see it on our #3 proposal regarding "rights". 1) Whether we should not talk about human rights at all because it's not strategic and will get vetoed...finding other, more widely acceptable avenues and language to talk about essentially the same issues. Whilst I am in two minds about this, at the end of the day I think as civil society organisations/individuals, we shouldn't shy away from pushing for what we believe in. 2) The lack of clarity in the term "Internet rights and principles". I fully agree that it's a phrase that lacks clarity and leaves us open to the risk of being dismissed as a session on these grounds as it was before. The reason the dynamic coalition has this name was partly due to the merging of the "bill of rights" and "framework of principles" coalitions in 2008, and partly due to a lack of clear thinking at the time about what the coalition should be called. Could we agree to talk about "human rights and policy principles that are needed to imlpement them"? Noone can dismiss "human rights" as a vague framework that lacks meaning - it's one of the "thickest" global governance frameworks that exists, is embedded in international law etc. I think we did a fairly good job of defining what we were talking about for our intervention at the september open consultations. Would that make a better statement to "recycle" than the one proposed? I've pasted it below for info. All the best, Lisa FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call (September 2009) The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite this, human rights and associated principles have received too little attention at the IGF so far. This is problematic because : * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and private actors at both national as well as global levels. * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of peoples, globally. * International human rights, as contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally binding. The growing role of information and communication technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement the human rights of their citizens. * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances different rights against each other to preserve individual and public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and responsibilities of other stakeholders. The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, and the development of positive policy principles to build an open and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to make Rights and Principles a core theme. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 7774 bytes Desc: not available URL: From katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Feb 7 11:50:00 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:50:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B3041@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B6ECBCF.8030008@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B3041@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <15B674C2-D632-479C-83C5-962D3D0091CA@datos-personales.org> Hi I am heading to the airport but plan to send my thoughts on No 3 as soon as I get internet again. We need to put concrete examples Briefly, we should talk on number 3 in concrete policy cases: a. Internet Intermediaries: Freedom of Expression, Due Process of Law, Privacy, (and much more). ie For instance those issues related to copyright and defamation. Hadopi Law. Three Strikes. b. ICT and Green Growth: Huge movements to promote ICT and Green Growth to reduce carbon emissions (good for Civil Society)..No discussion on the privacy implication of those technologies. There should be also ICT4D implication here. c. Cloud Computing: Open Standards, Interoperability, Huge Privacy issues, Freedom of expression, Due Process of Law, concentration of power, ICT4D, d. Internet and The News: Publishers, Search Engines, Advertising, Online News needs to have public funding? I think any of those topics has huge implications for us! We should put clearly examples to explain number 3. FYI, I agree with 1, 2. However, I prefer a different wording for number 3. All the best, P.D hope I am able to arrive to the airport. Lot of snow here in DC. On Feb 7, 2010, at 11:32 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Firstly, I vote yes to all three. > > Secondly, just a a quick intervention on #3... > > There are 2 points of contention as I see it on our #3 proposal > regarding "rights". > > 1) Whether we should not talk about human rights at all because it's > not strategic and will get vetoed...finding other, more widely > acceptable avenues and language to talk about essentially the same > issues. > > Whilst I am in two minds about this, at the end of the day I think > as civil society organisations/individuals, we shouldn't shy away > from pushing for what we believe in. > > 2) The lack of clarity in the term "Internet rights and principles". > > I fully agree that it's a phrase that lacks clarity and leaves us > open to the risk of being dismissed as a session on these grounds as > it was before. The reason the dynamic coalition has this name was > partly due to the merging of the "bill of rights" and "framework of > principles" coalitions in 2008, and partly due to a lack of clear > thinking at the time about what the coalition should be called. > > Could we agree to talk about "human rights and policy principles > that are needed to imlpement them"? Noone can dismiss "human rights" > as a vague framework that lacks meaning - it's one of the "thickest" > global governance frameworks that exists, is embedded in > international law etc. > > I think we did a fairly good job of defining what we were talking > about for our intervention at the september open consultations. > Would that make a better statement to "recycle" than the one > proposed? I've pasted it below for info. > > All the best, > Lisa > > > FINAL STATEMENT (V6) - for consensus call (September 2009) > > > The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] repeat their request that the > programme for IGF-4 in Egypt gives greater priority to human > rights. The WSIS Declaration and Tunis Agenda strongly reaffirmed > the centrality of human rights in the information society. Despite > this, human rights and associated principles have received too > little attention at the IGF so > far. This is problematic because : > > * Fundamental human rights such as the rights to freedom of > expression, privacy, civic participation, education and development > are strongly threatened by the actions and restrictive policies of a > growing number of actors vis a vis the internet, including state and > private actors at both national as well as global levels. > > > * The internet presents new opportunities for upholding and > advancing human rights, for example through enhancing access to > knowledge and common resources. It is vital that we build on and > enhance these opportunities. Ignoring these avenues to uphold human > rights implies a serious opportunity cost for the well being of > peoples, globally. > > > * International human rights, as contained in the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights and confirmed by the core human rights > treaties and other universal human rights instruments, are legally > binding. The growing role of information and communication > technologies has not changed the legal obligation of states that > have ratified these instruments to respect, protect and implement > the human rights of their citizens. > > > * The human rights framework is an internationally agreed set of > standards that has practical as well as ethical value. It balances > different rights against each other to preserve individual and > public interest. In addition to its legally binding implications, > human rights are therefore a useful tool for addressing internet > governance issues, such as how to deal with security concerns on the > internet in compliance with the rights to freedom of expression and > privacy. Besides stating the obligations of states and governments, > the human rights framework also allows us to derive the rights and > responsibilities of other stakeholders. > > The Internet Governance Caucus [and undersigned DCs] call for the > human rights dimension of all internet governance issues to be > included in the planning and implementation of all future IGF > sessions, so that human rights are given the attention they deserve > as cross-cutting issues. This should include explicit consideration > of how global, regional and national policies affect human rights, > and the development of positive policy principles to build an open > and accessible internet for all. The Caucus [and undersigned DCs] > would like to offer assistance to the organisers of the main plenary > sessions to do this, and would like to support all stakeholders > through providing access to relevant guidelines and experts. We see > this upcoming IGF in Egypt and future IGFs as renewed opportunity to > make Rights and Principles a core theme. > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/ > translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 12:07:46 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:07:46 -0200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <3ef75b781002070828q6977b5d6qeba58d7205905080@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EE641.8050504@cafonso.ca> <3ef75b781002070828q6977b5d6qeba58d7205905080@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes to the three statements Marília 2010/2/7 Hindenburgo Pires > My vote is yes to all three proposals! > > Regards, > > Ginger > > 2010/2/7 Carlos A. Afonso > > Yes to al three. Just to stress the importance of NN discussion and the >> theme deserving better treatment at the IGF, this is from today's El País >> (Madrid). In Spanish, sorry for the EN-only speakers, but shows basically >> what the carriers want to have -- freedom to handle traffic in any way they >> please, for the sake of $$$. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> http://www.elpais.com/articulo/tecnologia/Telefonica/abre/fuego/buscadores/elpeputec/20100207elpeputec_1/Tes >> >> Telefónica abre fuego contra los buscadores >> César Alierta avisa de que la nueva "estrategia" de la compañía pasará por >> cobrar a Google o Yahoo por utilizar sus redes >> >> EL PAÍS - Madrid - 07/02/2010 >> >> Google, Microsoft o Yahoo "utilizan las redes de Telefónica sin pagar >> nada, lo cual es una suerte para ellos y una desgracia para nosotros. Pero >> eso no va a poder seguir, es evidente". En estos términos se ha referido en >> Bilbao el presidente de Telefónica, César Alierta, que este viernes lanzaba >> un claro aviso a los buscadores: "Las redes las ponemos nosotros, el peering >> lo hacemos nosotros, los sistemas los hacemos nosotros, el customer care lo >> hacemos nosotros, el servicio post-venta lo hacemos nosotros, el servicio de >> instalación lo hacemos nosotros... lo hacemos todo. Quiero decir, ellos >> tienen algoritmos y contenidos..." >> >> Sus declaraciones ya han encontrado eco en varios blogs y plataformas como >> Twitter o Menéame, donde los usuarios entienden la nueva "estrategia" de >> Telefónica como un modo de comenzar a cobrar por partida doble. "Es como si >> Fenosa o Endesa le cobrara a los fabricantes de electrodomésticos por usar >> la red eléctrica", sentencian. >> >> Alierta se ha referido también en su intervención a las aplicaciones que >> los usuarios descargan en sus terminales inteligentes, como en el caso del >> iPhone. El presidente de Telefónica se ha referido al "fenómeno del garaje: >> una oportunidad que se ha abierto para todos los chicos y chicas listos que >> hay en el mundo de generar aplicaciones y servicios que luego utilizan >> nuestras plataformas". iPhone, ha dicho, ha dado la posibilidad a todos >> aquellos que crean una aplicación en cualquier parte del mundo, de ofrecerla >> a todos los que utilizan un terminal de Apple. "Lo que va a cambiar >> radicalmente en los próximos meses y desde luego, este año, es que las >> plataformas de los operadores van a estar abiertas para que cualquiera que >> tenga una idea, una aplicación y un servicio la vuelque en nuestras >> plataformas, la vuelque en Arequipa y se pueda descargar en Madrid. Y >> nosotros nos llevaremos una parte de eso, evidentemente". >> >> "El chico de Arequipa", ha dicho, va a tener la suerte "de que nuestros >> 700 millones de clientes van a poder utilizar su aplicación en Pekín o en >> Berlín". Para ilustrar su idea, Alierta ha hecho un paralelismo con los >> mensajes de texto o SMS. "¿Por qué han funcionado bien los SMS? Porque todas >> las redes de todos los operadores están conectados. Esto va a pasar con las >> aplicaciones. Y esto va a pasar este año. Con una diferencia, que nuestro >> sistema es abierto y el de Apple es cerrado", esto es, "que un chico de >> Arequipa suba la aplicación utilizando la red de Movistar y eso se pueda >> descargar si tienes un Samsung, Nokia, Motorola o un HTC". >> >> Alierta ha querido insistir en que se trata de una noticia positiva para >> todos los implicados. Sin embargo, no todos están de acuerdo con él. "¿Qué >> es lo que piensan los mercados? Que de eso no vamos a ver un duro. ¿Qué es >> lo que pienso yo? Que están totalmente equivocados", ha añadido. "La >> inteligencia está en la red y las redes las tenemos nosotros". >> >> © EDICIONES EL PAÍS S.L. - Miguel Yuste 40 - 28037 Madrid [España] - Tel. >> 91 337 8200 >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Hindenburgo Francisco Pires > Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Geografia Humana > Instituto de Geografia • Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ > Rua São Francisco Xavier, 524 - 4º andar - bloco D - sala 4031 • Maracanã > Rio de Janeiro - RJ, CEP: 20550-013 | tel/fax: (21) 2254-2542 / 2334-0036 / > 2334-0614 > http://www.cibergeo.org/artigos/ > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 12:08:19 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:38:19 -0430 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B3041@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B6ECBCF.8030008@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A8@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A01B3041@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <4B6EF383.9060303@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Sun Feb 7 12:11:00 2010 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:11:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] IGC meeting Les Brasseurs, Geneva, Feb. 08 7:30 p.m. In-Reply-To: <4B6EAB9E.30109@gmail.com> Message-ID: <128773.71146.qm@web27801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Ginger, Sorry for delay, please add me for the IGC meeting ,Feb 08.I just landed Geneva. Thanks Gatete --- En date de : Dim 7.2.10, Ginger Paque a écrit : De: Ginger Paque Objet: [governance] IGC meeting Les Brasseurs, Geneva, Feb. 08 7:30 p.m. À: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , "William Drake" Date: Dimanche 7 Février 2010, 13h01 Avri Hello everyone, I show 16 people for our meeting Monday evening at Les Brasseurs (see list below, and please let me and/or Bill know offlist if there are any additions or changes). I will be there just before 7:30 p.m. Everyone is welcome, and encouraged to join us in person or online. Barring unforeseen complications, the Les Brasseurs should have  Wi-Fi Internet, and I will have my computer, watching both email and Skype.  My Skype login is gingerpaque. Best, Ginger Fouad Hartmut Ginger Roland Calros Afonso Bill Drake and Wife Parminder Katitza Milton 9 pm Willie Currie Lisa Horner... Graciela Saleiman Wolfgang 11 pm Brendon Kuerbis Qusai Al-Shatti -----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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Feb 7 12:16:04 2010 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:16:04 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday. In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <608012.74420.qm@web27801.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Dear Ginger and all, My votes here : 1.YES 2.YES 3.YES Regards, Gatete --- En date de : Dim 7.2.10, Ginger Paque a écrit : De: Ginger Paque Objet: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday. À: "'governance at lists.cpsr.org'" , "William Drake" , "Parminder" , "lee.hibbard at coe.int" , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Ian Peter" , "McTim" Date: Dimanche 7 Février 2010, 12h40 Hello all, I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on Tuesday. With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent suggestion. An all agreement vote would read: 1: Yes 2: Yes 3: Yes Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. 1. Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. 2. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms.  To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail.   In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. 3. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. Thank you very much. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From charityg at diplomacy.edu Sun Feb 7 12:37:07 2010 From: charityg at diplomacy.edu (Charity Gamboa) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 11:37:07 -0600 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m In-Reply-To: References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes to all three Ginger. Thank you. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hello all, >> I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of >> electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in >> Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on >> Tuesday. >> >> With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now >> making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should >> allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva >> Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we >> have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the >> meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as >> possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. >> >> I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be >> read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order >> shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent >> suggestion. >> >> An all agreement vote would read: >> 1: Yes >> 2: Yes >> 3: Yes >> >> Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. >> >> 1. >> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for >> the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the >> Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all >> business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the >> focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the >> Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this >> principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy >> in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture >> are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. >> > > Yes > >> >> 2. >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of >> the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been >> posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a >> broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for >> Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To >> address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A >> Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have >> organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different >> visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related >> discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main >> session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify >> the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and >> consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF >> discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also >> continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing >> a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the >> IGF on a development agenda. >> > > Yes > >> >> 3. >> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical >> principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant >> global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many >> social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration >> of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more >> comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > No > > >> >> >> In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a >> development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a >> certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These >> successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. >> >> The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic >> and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic >> Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the >> Vilnius agenda. >> > > > > >> Thank you very much. >> Best, >> Ginger > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Charity Gamboa-Embley Student Alternatives Program, Inc - South Plains Academy 4008 Avenue R Lubbock, Texas 79412 Phone: +1 (806) 744 0330 Fax: +1 (806) 741 1089 http://www.stdsapi.com/ cembley at esc17.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 13:07:27 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:07:27 +0300 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: All, Can we please trim CC list in future, it's getting annoying. On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss it – > at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. > > Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased > enough so that we can better make an issue of it. > > Instead of using “alternate wording” on the vain hope that authoritarians > can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual > rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows > what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. My initial reading was the same as yours, but after some offlist chat and a reread, it seems that Ginger is trying to formulate a fallback position in case the HR language isn't well rec'd. Is that correct Ginger? If so, I am happy to have Ginger go with either "personal or individual aspects of Internet Governance or personal or individual dimensions of Internet Governance" under the rule of our charter which states: "The coordinators will act as the official representatives of the caucus and will be responsible for approving any statement that cannot be discussed by the caucus within the time available. In the case of face-to-face meetings, they will also coordinate with the members of the IGC who are present. Any statement should reflect the assumed general thinking of the caucus, rather than just that of those members who are physically present at the meeting." -- 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 lehto.paul at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 13:27:31 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:27:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B6EC82B.3040801@wzb.eu> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EC82B.3040801@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <76f819dd1002071027p463c06dr442df513777b9a90@mail.gmail.com> 1. NO (only because the "contested" nature of net neutrality, while surely present, doesn't apply to every single aspect of net neutrality and allowing the inference that it does weakens net neutrality efforts and implicitly misleads some readers) 2. YES 3. YES (PARTICULARLY as to rights and principles. I know of NO political power or persuasion that does NOT emanate from rights or principles, only people who differ in their conceptions of rights and principles. Dropping a right or principle because of the fear or the reality that others will disagree is surrender before even trying, which doesn't make a lot of sense if the right or principle's an important one) On 2/7/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Yes to all three, although I find it unfortunate if we stick to the > rights and principles language which will get us nowhere. > jeanette > > Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hello all, >> I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of >> electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in >> Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on >> Tuesday. >> >> With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now >> making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This >> should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in >> Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected >> (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype >> during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many >> voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. >> >> I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be >> read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the >> order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's >> recent suggestion. >> >> An all agreement vote would read: >> 1: Yes >> 2: Yes >> 3: Yes >> >> Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. >> >> 1. >> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for >> the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the >> Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all >> business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the >> focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the >> Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this >> principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet >> policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet >> architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet >> today. >> >> 2. >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus >> of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development >> has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not >> featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet >> Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and >> operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has >> advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet >> Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced >> position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda >> could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el >> Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The >> dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between >> Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for >> mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and >> Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to >> support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a >> multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to >> the IGF on a development agenda. >> >> 3. >> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in >> technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality >> as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly >> central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view >> that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the >> basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. >> >> >> In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a >> development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a >> certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These >> successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. >> >> The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic >> and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of >> Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as >> part of the Vilnius agenda. >> Thank you very much. >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 13:34:13 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 13:34:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com> Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet users. Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss it - > at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. > Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased > enough so that we can better make an issue of it. > Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians > can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual > rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows > what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. > > --MM > > ________________________________ > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder > Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main session > on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy > suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more abstract > wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of anything > good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would > work? " > > I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. > However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope we > can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at Les > Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other > stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address > IRP. > > If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to > consider: > > legal provisions (Jeanette) > Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance > Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance > Internet governance and the position of individuals > Internet governance and individuals > > gp > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: > > > Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was > defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't > find a definition of it in any of them. > > McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and > underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the > caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support > here. The latter trumps the former, > > Why? Majority trumps reason? > > so it should be included in the > > statement. > > Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main session > on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy > suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more abstract > wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of anything > good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would > work? > > jeanette > > > Best, > > Bill____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed > from the list, send any > message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 14:00:44 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 06:00:44 +1100 Subject: AW: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Yes to all three, but I endorse Miltons first comment. I am unsure where this "all layers" came in - I thought we had agreement on NN - Open Internet as the way forward and I think the all layers reference is not helpful > From: Milton L Mueller > Reply-To: , Milton L Mueller > Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:53:27 -0500 > To: "governance at lists.cpsr.org" > Cc: Ginger Paque > Subject: RE: AW: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until > > > Yes to #1 and #3 for me. > > On #1, would prefer that the "openness at all layers of the internet" phrase, > which provides a fat, easy target for any policy-aware technical person, be > changed to "ensuring the openness of the Internet." But may be beyond the > point of such modifications; its been hard to keep up with this discussion so > I offer my acceptance on practical grounds if it can't be changed. > > On #2, the theme as presented is not all that bad, but many of you may be > familiar with my belief in the bankruptcy of the development industry and > development rhetoric as a path toward actual economic and social growth, and > whatever the content or intent of our proposal I believe that such a theme, if > accepted, would inevitably gravitate toward and reinforce those older themes > (especially given the likelihood the other 2 themes will be vetoed). > > On #3, it seems we are still discussing verbal modifications, so I express my > general support for the theme and the principles and trust our hard-working > coordinators to work something out in time. > > --MM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] >> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:48 AM >> To: Governance List >> Cc: Ginger Paque >> Subject: Re: AW: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until >> 10 p.m >> >> Yes to all. >> >> But Ginger I think it would help if you would reinstate the titles of the >> proposals... >> >> Bill >> >> On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:43 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Yes for all three >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> Gesendet: So 07.02.2010 12:40 >>> An: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; William Drake; Parminder; >> lee.hibbard at coe.int; Jeremy Malcolm; Ian Peter; McTim >>> Betreff: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 >> p.m GMT Monday. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hello all, >>> I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of >> electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in >> Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on >> Tuesday. >>> >>> With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now >> making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This >> should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in >> Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected >> (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype >> during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many >> voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. >>> >>> I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be >> read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order >> shown.. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent >> suggestion. >>> >>> An all agreement vote would read: >>> 1: Yes >>> 2: Yes >>> 3: Yes >>> >>> Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. >>> >>> 1. >>> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for >>> the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the >>> Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all >>> business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the >> focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the >> Internet.. This main session should examine the implications of this >> principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet >> policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet >> architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. >>> >>> 2. >>> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus >> of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has >> been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not >> featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet >> Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational >> terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main >> session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its >> members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating >> different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the >> related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call >> for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter >> alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and >> development, and consider options for mainstreaming development >> considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as >> appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal >> to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could >> develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. >>> >>> 3. >>> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in >> technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet's functionality as >> a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly >> central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that >> a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis >> for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. >>> >>> >>> In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a >> development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a >> certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These >> successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. >>> >>> The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic >> and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of >> Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part >> of the Vilnius agenda. >>> >>> Thank you very much. >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Feb 7 14:09:32 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:09:32 +0000 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> Paul Lehto wrote: > Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. > > Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the > best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some > ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get > the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a > revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet > users. I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. jeanette > > Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever > random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to > keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. > > All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. > The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. > To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number > of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss it - >> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. >> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased >> enough so that we can better make an issue of it. >> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians >> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual >> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows >> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. >> >> --MM >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder >> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main session >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more abstract >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of anything >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >> work? " >> >> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. >> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope we >> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at Les >> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other >> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address >> IRP. >> >> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to >> consider: >> >> legal provisions (Jeanette) >> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance >> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance >> Internet governance and the position of individuals >> Internet governance and individuals >> >> gp >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was >> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't >> find a definition of it in any of them. >> >> McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and >> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the >> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support >> here. The latter trumps the former, >> >> Why? Majority trumps reason? >> >> so it should be included in the >> >> statement. >> >> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main session >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more abstract >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of anything >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >> work? >> >> jeanette >> >> >> Best, >> >> Bill____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed >> from the list, send any >> message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 14:22:32 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 14:22:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> References: <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com> <4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <76f819dd1002071122s58b9b046m727dd84301916626@mail.gmail.com> There simply is no action, concrete or otherwise, that is not preceded by ideas and principles, even if the principles are pragmatism, hedonism, greed or whatever. Thus, there is no "concrete" without rights and/or principles, so a preference for "concrete" is not a "second way", it's just an application of principles to a single context, with no claim for their broader applicability (whenever rights or principles are not expressly identified for purposes of such) A "concrete" proposal will have principles (for certain) and may have rights that underlay its actual text, so the question is, are those principles and rights that necessarily exist in all cases just undisclosed in the text of a particular case example, or have the rights instead been abandoned in favor of some other de facto vision of internet governance? If it is the latter, we can all be thankful that, in the rights we do have, other people and prior generations did not give up after the first few rejections. That's the key to success in fields as disparate as sales, politics, rights and training for the olympic games. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 2/7/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Paul Lehto wrote: >> Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. >> >> Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the >> best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some >> ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get >> the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a >> revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet >> users. > > I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the > rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost > every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the > WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you > hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out > on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. > > What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete > organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal > title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. > > I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically > lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would > allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. > > jeanette >> >> Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever >> random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to >> keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. >> >> All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. >> The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. >> To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number >> of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. >> >> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >> >> On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss >>> it - >>> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. >>> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased >>> enough so that we can better make an issue of it. >>> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians >>> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual >>> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows >>> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. >>> >>> --MM >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder >>> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>> session >>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>> abstract >>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>> anything >>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>> work? " >>> >>> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. >>> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope >>> we >>> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at >>> Les >>> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other >>> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address >>> IRP. >>> >>> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to >>> consider: >>> >>> legal provisions (Jeanette) >>> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance >>> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance >>> Internet governance and the position of individuals >>> Internet governance and individuals >>> >>> gp >>> >>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> >>> William Drake wrote: >>> >>> Hi >>> >>> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was >>> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't >>> find a definition of it in any of them. >>> >>> McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and >>> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the >>> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support >>> here. The latter trumps the former, >>> >>> Why? Majority trumps reason? >>> >>> so it should be included in the >>> >>> statement. >>> >>> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>> session >>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>> abstract >>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>> anything >>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>> work? >>> >>> jeanette >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Bill____________________________________________________________ You >>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed >>> from the list, send any >>> message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Feb 7 14:42:45 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:42:45 +0000 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <76f819dd1002071122s58b9b046m727dd84301916626@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com> <4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> <76f819dd1002071122s58b9b046m727dd84301916626@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B6F17B5.4030107@wzb.eu> Paul Lehto wrote: > There simply is no action, concrete or otherwise, that is not preceded > by ideas and principles, even if the principles are pragmatism, > hedonism, greed or whatever. I don't deny this but this discussion is not a conceptual one, it is about agenda setting. We discuss the issue of how to make rights and principles the subject of a main session at the next IGF. The MAG works by consensus. We won't get any topic accepted that one or several of the members don't want. I will leave it at that. I am not even sure anymore if we are arguing about the same goals. jeanette Thus, there is no "concrete" without > rights and/or principles, so a preference for "concrete" is not a > "second way", it's just an application of principles to a single > context, with no claim for their broader applicability (whenever > rights or principles are not expressly identified for purposes of > such) > > A "concrete" proposal will have principles (for certain) and may have > rights that underlay its actual text, so the question is, are those > principles and rights that necessarily exist in all cases just > undisclosed in the text of a particular case example, or have the > rights instead been abandoned in favor of some other de facto vision > of internet governance? > > If it is the latter, we can all be thankful that, in the rights we do > have, other people and prior generations did not give up after the > first few rejections. That's the key to success in fields as > disparate as sales, politics, rights and training for the olympic > games. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 2/7/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> Paul Lehto wrote: >>> Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. >>> >>> Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the >>> best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some >>> ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get >>> the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a >>> revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet >>> users. >> I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the >> rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost >> every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the >> WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you >> hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out >> on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. >> >> What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete >> organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal >> title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. >> >> I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically >> lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would >> allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. >> >> jeanette >>> Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever >>> random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to >>> keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. >>> >>> All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. >>> The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. >>> To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number >>> of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. >>> >>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >>> >>> On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss >>>> it - >>>> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. >>>> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased >>>> enough so that we can better make an issue of it. >>>> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians >>>> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual >>>> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows >>>> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. >>>> >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>>> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder >>>> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>>> session >>>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>>> abstract >>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>>> anything >>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>>> work? " >>>> >>>> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. >>>> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope >>>> we >>>> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at >>>> Les >>>> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other >>>> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address >>>> IRP. >>>> >>>> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to >>>> consider: >>>> >>>> legal provisions (Jeanette) >>>> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance >>>> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance >>>> Internet governance and the position of individuals >>>> Internet governance and individuals >>>> >>>> gp >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was >>>> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't >>>> find a definition of it in any of them. >>>> >>>> McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and >>>> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the >>>> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support >>>> here. The latter trumps the former, >>>> >>>> Why? Majority trumps reason? >>>> >>>> so it should be included in the >>>> >>>> statement. >>>> >>>> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>>> session >>>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>>> abstract >>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>>> anything >>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>>> work? >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill____________________________________________________________ You >>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed >>>> from the list, send any >>>> message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 15:03:33 2010 From: lehto.paul at gmail.com (Paul Lehto) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:03:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <4B6F17B5.4030107@wzb.eu> References: <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com> <4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> <76f819dd1002071122s58b9b046m727dd84301916626@mail.gmail.com> <4B6F17B5.4030107@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <76f819dd1002071203w3f379864id57e01ccb28fb620@mail.gmail.com> A reasonable question is "how does this right apply to concrete situation X?" That gets both the concrete and the rights involved. More often than not, disagreement is the result of differing underlying values, principles and rights conceptions. I would agree with Jeanette to the extent that an agenda item were of the nature "what are our rights?" The answer to such hesitancy is nearly always going to be "none" unless one is asking someone with a special fiduciary duty to the person asking the question, such as an attorney answering a client. Fundamental rights are not made, they are asserted. Even a real right, when set forth hesitantly or tentatively, loses something in the hesistancy. However, I concur with Jeannette to avoid open-ended discussions, if that's what's happened, over whether or not rights even exist, for example. Such discussion is self-defeating and academic and not concrete in a way I tend to agree isn't good. Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor On 2/7/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Paul Lehto wrote: >> There simply is no action, concrete or otherwise, that is not preceded >> by ideas and principles, even if the principles are pragmatism, >> hedonism, greed or whatever. > > I don't deny this but this discussion is not a conceptual one, it is > about agenda setting. We discuss the issue of how to make rights and > principles the subject of a main session at the next IGF. > The MAG works by consensus. We won't get any topic accepted that one or > several of the members don't want. > I will leave it at that. I am not even sure anymore if we are arguing > about the same goals. > > jeanette > > > Thus, there is no "concrete" without >> rights and/or principles, so a preference for "concrete" is not a >> "second way", it's just an application of principles to a single >> context, with no claim for their broader applicability (whenever >> rights or principles are not expressly identified for purposes of >> such) >> >> A "concrete" proposal will have principles (for certain) and may have >> rights that underlay its actual text, so the question is, are those >> principles and rights that necessarily exist in all cases just >> undisclosed in the text of a particular case example, or have the >> rights instead been abandoned in favor of some other de facto vision >> of internet governance? >> >> If it is the latter, we can all be thankful that, in the rights we do >> have, other people and prior generations did not give up after the >> first few rejections. That's the key to success in fields as >> disparate as sales, politics, rights and training for the olympic >> games. >> >> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >> >> On 2/7/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >>> Paul Lehto wrote: >>>> Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. >>>> >>>> Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the >>>> best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some >>>> ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get >>>> the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a >>>> revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet >>>> users. >>> I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the >>> rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost >>> every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the >>> WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you >>> hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out >>> on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. >>> >>> What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete >>> organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal >>> title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. >>> >>> I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically >>> lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would >>> allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. >>> >>> jeanette >>>> Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever >>>> random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to >>>> keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. >>>> >>>> All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. >>>> The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. >>>> To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number >>>> of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. >>>> >>>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >>>> >>>> On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>>> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss >>>>> it - >>>>> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. >>>>> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased >>>>> enough so that we can better make an issue of it. >>>>> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that >>>>> authoritarians >>>>> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual >>>>> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone >>>>> knows >>>>> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. >>>>> >>>>> --MM >>>>> >>>>> ________________________________ >>>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>>>> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM >>>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>>>> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder >>>>> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>>>> session >>>>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>>>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>>>> abstract >>>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>>>> anything >>>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' >>>>> would >>>>> work? " >>>>> >>>>> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. >>>>> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I >>>>> hope >>>>> we >>>>> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at >>>>> Les >>>>> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other >>>>> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to >>>>> address >>>>> IRP. >>>>> >>>>> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to >>>>> consider: >>>>> >>>>> legal provisions (Jeanette) >>>>> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance >>>>> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance >>>>> Internet governance and the position of individuals >>>>> Internet governance and individuals >>>>> >>>>> gp >>>>> >>>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> William Drake wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi >>>>> >>>>> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was >>>>> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't >>>>> find a definition of it in any of them. >>>>> >>>>> McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and >>>>> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the >>>>> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support >>>>> here. The latter trumps the former, >>>>> >>>>> Why? Majority trumps reason? >>>>> >>>>> so it should be included in the >>>>> >>>>> statement. >>>>> >>>>> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>>>> session >>>>> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>>>> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>>>> abstract >>>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>>>> anything >>>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' >>>>> would >>>>> work? >>>>> >>>>> jeanette >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Bill____________________________________________________________ You >>>>> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be >>>>> removed >>>>> from the list, send any >>>>> message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >> >> > -- Paul R Lehto, J.D. P.O. Box #1 Ishpeming, MI 49849 lehto.paul at gmail.com 906-204-4026 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Feb 7 15:04:22 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 12:04:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: f65fb55e1002071007g52fc1b70m49da3400948af2cd@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: IMO - Ginger has placed a last minute 'Bait-N-Switch' disguised for the HR agenda. It has no place in the OC-IGF meeting or IGF, the UNSG has pleanty of Agencys* which handel Human Rights issues with plenty of Forum. At best to my opinion the: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights** is the proper place to seek venue of which Ginger et.al. is seeking. The IGF platform is not the proper venue for HR. The consquences of tableing the HR agenda with the MAG (UNSG etc...) could result in the ITU receiving the ballance of power in regards to the IGF. It is a risk that does not need to be taken by the IGC. Drop it. - * http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/training/UN-inter-agency-links.htm ** http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/training/UN-inter-agency.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Feb 7 15:42:30 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:42:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings I am pleased to copy below the Civil Society Statement issues for the OECD Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet. This statement makes clear that Civil Society Agenda is a Human Rights Agenda (in reply to Yehuda). The original text is available here: http://csisac.org/seoul.php I have tweak the text a little to show that all those issues is under the Human Rights Umbrella. A BROAD FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET The policy goals for the Future Internet should be considered within the broader framework of protection of human rights, the promotion of democratic institutions, access to information, and the provision of affordable and non-discriminatory access to advanced communication networks and services. Compliance with international human rights standards and respect for the rule of law, as well as effective human rights protection, must be the baseline for assessing global information society policies. Economic growth should be for the many and not the few. The Internet should be available to all. We therefore call attention of all the stakeholder to the following civil society priorities, and we make the following recommendations: Freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is being violated around the globe by state censorship and by more subtle measures such as content filtering, privatized censorship and restrictions on so-called “harmful content.” We urge all stakeholder to defend freedom of expression and to oppose mandated filtering, censorship of Internet content, and criminalization of content that is protected under international freedom of expression standards. Protection of Privacy and Transparency. We reaffirm our support for the OECD Privacy Guidelines as a fundamental policy instrument setting out minimal requirements for the transborder flow of personal data. We call countries to adopt and enforce data protection laws covering all sectors, both online and offline, and to establish international data protection standards that are legally enforceable. We further urge member states to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability for all data processing for border security, identification, and decision- making concerning individuals. Consumer Protection. Trust and confidence are critical to the success of the Internet economy. The OECD should ensure that consumer protection laws are properly enforced and cover digital products to the same extent that other consumer goods and services are covered. We recommend that the OECD adopt the policy proposals on Empowering Consumers in Communications Services and in Mobile Commerce as Council Recommendations, and that the OECD member countries implement these recommendations. We support the OECD’s efforts to facilitate cross- border enforcement of anti-spam laws and to develop effective online dispute resolution mechanisms. Employment, Decent Work and Skills. We recommend that OECD Member countries promote learning and training opportunities for workers and address the technological and organizational change in the workplace. We further urge the OECD to lower the carbon footprint of the ICT industry and to promote compliance with core labor standards and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. Promotion of Access to Knowledge. countries should oppose extensions of copyright terms and private ownership of essential knowledge and cultural information that can be made available on the Internet. We recommend to discuss the importance of copyright exceptions for education, libraries and archives, the disability community, and new innovative services. Internet Governance. Internet governance structures should reflect democratic values and be transparent and publicly accountable to users. Global Internet policymaking should involve equal participation of all people, countries, and stakeholders. Promotion of Open Standards and Net Neutrality. Standards-making processes should be open and should encourage competition. This promotes innovation and development. We support the procurement policies that promote open standards, open data formats, and free and open software. We further recommend Countries oppose discrimination by network providers against particular applications, devices, or content and preserve the Internet's role in fostering innovation, economic growth, and democratic communication. Balanced Intellectual Property Policies. We urge t countries to maintain a balanced framework for intellectual property protection that is least intrusive to personal privacy, least restrictive for the development of new technologies, and that promotes creativity, innovation, and learning. Countries should oppose proposals that would deny individuals access to all Internet services and opportunities based on alleged copyright infringement. We are also concerned about the secrecy of the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement" (ACTA) treaty process and the possibility of policies that may limit legitimate business activity, the participative web, and e-government service delivery. Support for Pluralistic Media. The Internet is a universal platform for innovation, growth, and the ability of people to express and share their views. New forms of media and new applications are emerging that challenge old paradigms and enable broader public participation. At the same time, dominant Internet firms are moving to consolidate their control over the Internet. It is vitally important that countries develop a better understanding of the challenge industry consolidations pose to the open Internet. Inclusive Digital Society. The Internet should be accessible to all. Countries should ensure that all residents have the means to access the Internet and should provide public Internet access, training and support. Particular attention should be paid to rural, remote and aboriginal populations, as well as the disability community. Cultural Diversity. We support the efforts of the members countries to promote access to the full range of the world's cultures and to ensure that the Internet economy reflects the true diversity of language, art, science, and literature in our world. The deployment of International Domain Names should be a priority. On Feb 7, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > IMO - Ginger has placed a last minute 'Bait-N-Switch' disguised for > the HR > agenda. > It has no place in the OC-IGF meeting or IGF, the UNSG has pleanty > of Agencys* > which handel Human Rights issues with plenty of Forum. > > At best to my opinion the: Office of the United Nations High > Commissioner for > Human Rights** is the proper place to seek venue of which Ginger > et.al. is > seeking. > > The IGF platform is not the proper venue for HR. The consquences of > tableing > the HR agenda with the MAG (UNSG etc...) could result in the ITU > receiving the > ballance of power in regards to the IGF. It is a risk that does not > need to be > taken by the IGC. > > Drop it. > > - > > * > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/training/UN-inter-agency-links.htm > > ** http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/training/UN-inter-agency.htm > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Feb 7 15:48:17 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 15:48:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This was a statement for civil society participants at the OECD Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet Economy. Signatures endorsing the statement are available here: http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/signatures.pdf On Feb 7, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Greetings > > I am pleased to copy below the Civil Society Statement issues for > the OECD Ministerial Meeting on the Future of the Internet. This > statement makes clear that Civil Society Agenda is a Human Rights > Agenda (in reply to Yehuda). > > The original text is available here: http://csisac.org/seoul.php > > I have tweak the text a little to show that all those issues is > under the Human Rights Umbrella. > > A BROAD FRAMEWORK FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET > > The policy goals for the Future Internet should be considered within > the broader framework of protection of human rights, the promotion > of democratic institutions, access to information, and the provision > of affordable and non-discriminatory access to advanced > communication networks and services. Compliance with international > human rights standards and respect for the rule of law, as well as > effective human rights protection, must be the baseline for > assessing global information society policies. Economic growth > should be for the many and not the few. The Internet should be > available to all. We therefore call attention of all the stakeholder > to the following civil society priorities, and we make the following > recommendations: > > Freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is being violated > around the globe by state censorship and by more subtle measures > such as content filtering, privatized censorship and restrictions on > so-called “harmful content.” We urge all stakeholder to defend > freedom of expression and to oppose mandated filtering, censorship > of Internet content, and criminalization of content that is > protected under international freedom of expression standards. > Protection of Privacy and Transparency. We reaffirm our support for > the OECD Privacy Guidelines as a fundamental policy instrument > setting out minimal requirements for the transborder flow of > personal data. We call countries to adopt and enforce data > protection laws covering all sectors, both online and offline, and > to establish international data protection standards that are > legally enforceable. We further urge member states to ensure > fairness, transparency, and accountability for all data processing > for border security, identification, and decision-making concerning > individuals. > Consumer Protection. Trust and confidence are critical to the > success of the Internet economy. The OECD should ensure that > consumer protection laws are properly enforced and cover digital > products to the same extent that other consumer goods and services > are covered. We recommend that the OECD adopt the policy proposals > on Empowering Consumers in Communications Services and in Mobile > Commerce as Council Recommendations, and that the OECD member > countries implement these recommendations. We support the OECD’s > efforts to facilitate cross- border enforcement of anti-spam laws > and to develop effective online dispute resolution mechanisms. > Employment, Decent Work and Skills. We recommend that OECD Member > countries promote learning and training opportunities for workers > and address the technological and organizational change in the > workplace. We further urge the OECD to lower the carbon footprint of > the ICT industry and to promote compliance with core labor standards > and the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. > Promotion of Access to Knowledge. countries should oppose > extensions of copyright terms and private ownership of essential > knowledge and cultural information that can be made available on the > Internet. We recommend to discuss the importance of copyright > exceptions for education, libraries and archives, the disability > community, and new innovative services. > Internet Governance. Internet governance structures should reflect > democratic values and be transparent and publicly accountable to > users. Global Internet policymaking should involve equal > participation of all people, countries, and stakeholders. > Promotion of Open Standards and Net Neutrality. Standards-making > processes should be open and should encourage competition. This > promotes innovation and development. We support the procurement > policies that promote open standards, open data formats, and free > and open software. We further recommend Countries oppose > discrimination by network providers against particular applications, > devices, or content and preserve the Internet's role in fostering > innovation, economic growth, and democratic communication. > Balanced Intellectual Property Policies. We urge t countries to > maintain a balanced framework for intellectual property protection > that is least intrusive to personal privacy, least restrictive for > the development of new technologies, and that promotes creativity, > innovation, and learning. Countries should oppose proposals that > would deny individuals access to all Internet services and > opportunities based on alleged copyright infringement. We are also > concerned about the secrecy of the "Anti-Counterfeiting Trade > Agreement" (ACTA) treaty process and the possibility of policies > that may limit legitimate business activity, the participative web, > and e-government service delivery. > Support for Pluralistic Media. The Internet is a universal platform > for innovation, growth, and the ability of people to express and > share their views. New forms of media and new applications are > emerging that challenge old paradigms and enable broader public > participation. At the same time, dominant Internet firms are moving > to consolidate their control over the Internet. It is vitally > important that countries develop a better understanding of the > challenge industry consolidations pose to the open Internet. > Inclusive Digital Society. The Internet should be accessible to all. > Countries should ensure that all residents have the means to access > the Internet and should provide public Internet access, training and > support. Particular attention should be paid to rural, remote and > aboriginal populations, as well as the disability community. > Cultural Diversity. We support the efforts of the members countries > to promote access to the full range of the world's cultures and to > ensure that the Internet economy reflects the true diversity of > language, art, science, and literature in our world. The deployment > of International Domain Names should be a priority. > > On Feb 7, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > >> IMO - Ginger has placed a last minute 'Bait-N-Switch' disguised for >> the HR >> agenda. >> It has no place in the OC-IGF meeting or IGF, the UNSG has pleanty >> of Agencys* >> which handel Human Rights issues with plenty of Forum. >> >> At best to my opinion the: Office of the United Nations High >> Commissioner for >> Human Rights** is the proper place to seek venue of which Ginger >> et.al. is >> seeking. >> >> The IGF platform is not the proper venue for HR. The consquences of >> tableing >> the HR agenda with the MAG (UNSG etc...) could result in the ITU >> receiving the >> ballance of power in regards to the IGF. It is a risk that does not >> need to be >> taken by the IGC. >> >> Drop it. >> >> - >> >> * >> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/training/UN-inter-agency-links.htm >> >> ** http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/training/UN-inter-agency.htm >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sun Feb 7 17:36:21 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 14:36:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: E2828CE5-800D-4865-94D1-2B7D51717EB5@datos-personales.org Message-ID: Katitza, as you know The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)* Is not the UNITED NATIONS, It represents an even smaller group of Countries (30). If you feel so inclined, may I suggest, You suggest to the UN IGF/MAG that the OECD should Host the IGF after 2010. The United Nations has its own Platform and Agencies** for Human Rights, and of those Agencies, they are working hard to intergrate Internet Governace Policy with the UN General Assembly, with the exisiting HR Procedure*** in place. - * OECD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Economic_Co-operation_and_Development OECD Member States http://www.oecd.org/countrieslist/0,3351,en_33873108_33844430_1_1_1_1_1,00.html ** UNITED NATIONS Human Rights Bodies http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/HumanRightsBodies.aspx Structure of the United Nations Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms http://www2.ohchr.org/english/structure.htm The United Nations Human Rights System http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=163 *** UN - Human Rights Council Complaint Procedure http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/complaints.htm ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Feb 7 17:43:04 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:43:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi! Yehuda I have no interest that OECD host the IGF! It has no sense! I just pointing you out that many organizations / individuals who Are in IGF and other international processes, and those organizations working at the national / regional level works to promote human rights on the Information society ! Katitza, Sent from my iPhone On Feb 7, 2010, at 5:36 PM, "Yehuda Katz" wrote: > Katitza, as you know > > The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)* > Is not the UNITED NATIONS, It represents an even smaller group of > Countries > (30). > > If you feel so inclined, may I suggest, You suggest to the UN IGF/ > MAG that the > OECD should Host the IGF after 2010. > > The United Nations has its own Platform and Agencies** for Human > Rights, and of > those Agencies, they are working hard to intergrate Internet > Governace Policy > with the UN General Assembly, with the exisiting HR Procedure*** in > place. > > - > * OECD > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisation_for_Economic_Co-operation_and_Development > > OECD Member States > http://www.oecd.org/countrieslist/0,3351,en_33873108_33844430_1_1_1_1_1,00.html > > > ** UNITED NATIONS Human Rights Bodies > http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/HumanRightsBodies.aspx > > Structure of the United Nations Human Rights Bodies and Mechanisms > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/structure.htm > > The United Nations Human Rights System > http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=163 > > > *** UN - Human Rights Council Complaint Procedure > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/complaints.htm > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 19:25:32 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 19:25:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> References: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com>,<4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CC43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I'm with the pragmatist; however Jeanette thinks she can phrase rights (& principles) to get a main theme at IGF is what I vote for. ________________________________________ From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:09 PM To: Paul Lehto Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) Paul Lehto wrote: > Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. > > Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the > best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some > ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get > the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a > revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet > users. I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. jeanette > > Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever > random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to > keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. > > All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. > The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. > To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number > of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss it - >> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. >> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased >> enough so that we can better make an issue of it. >> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians >> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual >> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows >> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. >> >> --MM >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder >> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main session >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more abstract >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of anything >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >> work? " >> >> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. >> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope we >> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at Les >> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other >> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address >> IRP. >> >> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to >> consider: >> >> legal provisions (Jeanette) >> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance >> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance >> Internet governance and the position of individuals >> Internet governance and individuals >> >> gp >> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: >> >> >> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was >> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't >> find a definition of it in any of them. >> >> McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and >> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the >> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support >> here. The latter trumps the former, >> >> Why? Majority trumps reason? >> >> so it should be included in the >> >> statement. >> >> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main session >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more abstract >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of anything >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >> work? >> >> jeanette >> >> >> Best, >> >> Bill____________________________________________________________ You >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed >> from the list, send any >> message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Feb 7 20:20:34 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:20:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CC43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com> <4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CC43@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: If 'rights" is the word that puts people's backs up why not use "human aspects (or human as opposed to technical aspects) of Internet governance", as Ginger suggested in the lead message of this string. The terminology includes rights, but also got frequent mention in the opening of the Sharm IGF, and, at least by implication, in "including the next billion" in Hyderabad so should be difficult to simply dismiss. Deirdre On 7 February 2010 20:25, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I'm with the pragmatist; however Jeanette thinks she can phrase rights (& > principles) to get a main theme at IGF is what I vote for. > ________________________________________ > From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:09 PM > To: Paul Lehto > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > Paul Lehto wrote: > > Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. > > > > Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the > > best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some > > ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get > > the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a > > revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet > > users. > > I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the > rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost > every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the > WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you > hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out > on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. > > What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete > organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal > title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. > > I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically > lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would > allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. > > jeanette > > > > Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever > > random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to > > keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. > > > > All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. > > The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. > > To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number > > of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. > > > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > > > On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss > it - > >> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. > >> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased > >> enough so that we can better make an issue of it. > >> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that > authoritarians > >> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual > >> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows > >> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. > >> > >> --MM > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > >> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > >> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder > >> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > >> > >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main > session > >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy > >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more > abstract > >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of > anything > >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' > would > >> work? " > >> > >> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. > >> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope > we > >> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at > Les > >> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other > >> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to > address > >> IRP. > >> > >> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to > >> consider: > >> > >> legal provisions (Jeanette) > >> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance > >> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance > >> Internet governance and the position of individuals > >> Internet governance and individuals > >> > >> gp > >> > >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> > >> > >> William Drake wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: > >> > >> > >> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was > >> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't > >> find a definition of it in any of them. > >> > >> McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and > >> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the > >> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support > >> here. The latter trumps the former, > >> > >> Why? Majority trumps reason? > >> > >> so it should be included in the > >> > >> statement. > >> > >> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main > session > >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy > >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more > abstract > >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of > anything > >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' > would > >> work? > >> > >> jeanette > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill____________________________________________________________ You > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be > removed > >> from the list, send any > >> message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sun Feb 7 20:28:10 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:28:10 +1100 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Or alternatively, if we talk about ³towards defining basic principles for internet governance² Have we got a way forward? From: Deirdre Williams Reply-To: , Deirdre Williams Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:20:34 -0400 To: , Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) If 'rights" is the word that puts people's backs up why not use "human aspects (or human as opposed to technical aspects) of Internet governance", as Ginger suggested in the lead message of this string. The terminology includes rights, but also got frequent mention in the opening of the Sharm IGF, and, at least by implication, in "including the next billion" in Hyderabad so should be difficult to simply dismiss. Deirdre On 7 February 2010 20:25, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I'm with the pragmatist; however Jeanette thinks she can phrase rights (& > principles) to get a main theme at IGF is what I vote for. > ________________________________________ > From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:09 PM > To: Paul Lehto > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > Paul Lehto wrote: >> > Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. >> > >> > Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the >> > best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some >> > ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get >> > the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a >> > revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet >> > users. > > I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the > rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost > every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the > WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you > hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out > on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. > > What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete > organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal > title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. > > I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically > lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would > allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. > > jeanette >> > >> > Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever >> > random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to >> > keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. >> > >> > All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. >> > The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. >> > To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number >> > of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. >> > >> > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >> > >> > On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss >>> it - >>> >> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. >>> >> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased >>> >> enough so that we can better make an issue of it. >>> >> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians >>> >> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual >>> >> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows >>> >> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. >>> >> >>> >> --MM >>> >> >>> >> ________________________________ >>> >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> >> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM >>> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>> >> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder >>> >> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) >>> >> >>> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>> session >>> >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>> >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>> abstract >>> >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>> anything >>> >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>> >> work? " >>> >> >>> >> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. >>> >> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope we >>> >> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at >>> Les >>> >> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other >>> >> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address >>> >> IRP. >>> >> >>> >> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to >>> >> consider: >>> >> >>> >> legal provisions (Jeanette) >>> >> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance >>> >> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance >>> >> Internet governance and the position of individuals >>> >> Internet governance and individuals >>> >> >>> >> gp >>> >> >>> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> William Drake wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi >>> >> >>> >> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was >>> >> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't >>> >> find a definition of it in any of them. >>> >> >>> >> McTim, Parminder, you are both right.  R&P is a broad and >>> >> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the >>> >> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support >>> >> here.  The latter trumps the former, >>> >> >>> >> Why? Majority trumps reason? >>> >> >>> >> so it should be included in the >>> >> >>> >> statement. >>> >> >>> >> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>> session >>> >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>> >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>> abstract >>> >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>> anything >>> >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>> >> work? >>> >> >>> >> jeanette >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Bill____________________________________________________________ You >>> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed >>> >> from the list, send any >>> >> message to: >>> >> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>> sr.org> >>> >> >>> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >> >>> >> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>> sr.org> >>> >> >>> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Sun Feb 7 21:11:24 2010 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 02:11:24 +0000 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until In-Reply-To: <20100207122259.9974B91A32@npogroups.org> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> <20100207122259.9974B91A32@npogroups.org> Message-ID: <609019df1002071811v40774e8k9d5e8cb67f949043@mail.gmail.com> Yes to all. Qusai Al-Shatti On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > If this is for all in the list, my consent is YES to all. > > Best regards, > Hakikur Rahman > > At 12:14 07-02-2010, Parminder wrote: > > Yes to all... > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should > allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva > Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we > have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the > meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as > possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read > together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. > The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent > suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy > in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture > are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of > the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been > posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a > broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for > Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms.  To > address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A > Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have > organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different > visions of what such an agenda could entail.   In light of the related > discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main > session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify > the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing > a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and > productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic > Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the > Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 7 22:26:59 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 06:26:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > Or alternatively, if we talk about > > “towards defining basic principles for internet governance” That's cool. -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 00:37:02 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:07:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: “towards defining basic principles for internet governance” is meaningful as a proposal for a theme +1 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Feb 8 01:28:04 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:28:04 +1100 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I should mention I am advancing this suggestion because it might get through MAG, not because I think rights are unimportant. Nor to amend what has been adopted as a general statement. And also the gist of it is to discuss basic principles for internet governance. WSIS gives us a start but perhaps its time to explore what else needs to be said here. Maybe it comes out as defining basic principles or something ­ anyway I am simply seeking a phrase and a topic broad enough to get MAG on board. Ian Peter From: Ian Peter Reply-To: , Ian Peter Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:28:10 +1100 To: , Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) Or alternatively, if we talk about ³towards defining basic principles for internet governance² Have we got a way forward? From: Deirdre Williams Reply-To: , Deirdre Williams Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:20:34 -0400 To: , Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) If 'rights" is the word that puts people's backs up why not use "human aspects (or human as opposed to technical aspects) of Internet governance", as Ginger suggested in the lead message of this string. The terminology includes rights, but also got frequent mention in the opening of the Sharm IGF, and, at least by implication, in "including the next billion" in Hyderabad so should be difficult to simply dismiss. Deirdre On 7 February 2010 20:25, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I'm with the pragmatist; however Jeanette thinks she can phrase rights (& > principles) to get a main theme at IGF is what I vote for. > ________________________________________ > From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:09 PM > To: Paul Lehto > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > Paul Lehto wrote: >> > Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. >> > >> > Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the >> > best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some >> > ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get >> > the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a >> > revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet >> > users. > > I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the > rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost > every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the > WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you > hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out > on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. > > What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete > organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal > title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. > > I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically > lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would > allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. > > jeanette >> > >> > Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever >> > random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to >> > keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. >> > >> > All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. >> > The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. >> > To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number >> > of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. >> > >> > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >> > >> > On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>> >> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss >>> it - >>> >> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. >>> >> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased >>> >> enough so that we can better make an issue of it. >>> >> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians >>> >> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual >>> >> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows >>> >> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. >>> >> >>> >> --MM >>> >> >>> >> ________________________________ >>> >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>> >> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM >>> >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>> >> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder >>> >> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) >>> >> >>> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>> session >>> >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>> >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>> abstract >>> >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>> anything >>> >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>> >> work? " >>> >> >>> >> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. >>> >> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope we >>> >> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at >>> Les >>> >> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other >>> >> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address >>> >> IRP. >>> >> >>> >> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to >>> >> consider: >>> >> >>> >> legal provisions (Jeanette) >>> >> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance >>> >> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance >>> >> Internet governance and the position of individuals >>> >> Internet governance and individuals >>> >> >>> >> gp >>> >> >>> >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> William Drake wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi >>> >> >>> >> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was >>> >> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't >>> >> find a definition of it in any of them. >>> >> >>> >> McTim, Parminder, you are both right.  R&P is a broad and >>> >> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the >>> >> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support >>> >> here.  The latter trumps the former, >>> >> >>> >> Why? Majority trumps reason? >>> >> >>> >> so it should be included in the >>> >> >>> >> statement. >>> >> >>> >> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>> session >>> >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy >>> >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more >>> abstract >>> >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>> anything >>> >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>> >> work? >>> >> >>> >> jeanette >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Best, >>> >> >>> >> Bill____________________________________________________________ You >>> >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed >>> >> from the list, send any >>> >> message to: >>> >> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>> sr.org> >>> >> >>> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> >> >>> >> >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>> sr.org> >>> >> >>> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>> >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >> >>> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Feb 8 03:15:54 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:15:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B6FC83A.2010205@wzb.eu> Hi, I support Ian's suggestion. jeanette Ian Peter wrote: > I should mention I am advancing this suggestion because it might get > through MAG, not because I think rights are unimportant. Nor to amend > what has been adopted as a general statement. > > And also the gist of it is to discuss basic principles for internet > governance. WSIS gives us a start but perhaps its time to explore what > else needs to be said here. Maybe it comes out as defining basic > principles or something – anyway I am simply seeking a phrase and a > topic broad enough to get MAG on board. > > Ian Peter > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *Ian Peter > *Reply-To: *, Ian Peter > *Date: *Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:28:10 +1100 > *To: *, Jeanette Hofmann > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > Or alternatively, if we talk about > > “towards defining basic principles for internet governance” > > Have we got a way forward? > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: *Deirdre Williams > *Reply-To: *, Deirdre Williams > > *Date: *Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:20:34 -0400 > *To: *, Lee W McKnight > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > If 'rights" is the word that puts people's backs up why not use "human > aspects (or human as opposed to technical aspects) of Internet > governance", as Ginger suggested in the lead message of this string. The > terminology includes rights, but also got frequent mention in the > opening of the Sharm IGF, and, at least by implication, in "including > the next billion" in Hyderabad so should be difficult to simply dismiss. > Deirdre > > On 7 February 2010 20:25, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > I'm with the pragmatist; however Jeanette thinks she can phrase > rights (& principles) to get a main theme at IGF is what I vote for. > ________________________________________ > From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:09 PM > To: Paul Lehto > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > Paul Lehto wrote: > > Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. > > > > Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the > > best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some > > ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get > > the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a > > revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet > > users. > > I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the > rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost > every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the > WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you > hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out > on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. > > What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete > organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal > title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. > > I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically > lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would > allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. > > jeanette > > > > Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever > > random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to > > keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. > > > > All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. > > The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. > > To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number > > of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. > > > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > > > On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public > discuss it - > > > at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. > > > Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and > well-phrased > > > enough so that we can better make an issue of it. > > > Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that > authoritarians > > > can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on > individual > > > rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that > everyone knows > > > what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. > > > > > > --MM > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > > > Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder > > > Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a > main session > > > on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as > Jeremy > > > suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps > more abstract > > > wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of > anything > > > good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal > provisions' would > > > work? " > > > > > > I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to > address it. > > > However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. > I hope we > > > can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening > meeting at Les > > > Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other > > > stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to > address > > > IRP. > > > > > > If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some > possibilities to > > > consider: > > > > > > legal provisions (Jeanette) > > > Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance > > > Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance > > > Internet governance and the position of individuals > > > Internet governance and individuals > > > > > > gp > > > > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > > > William Drake wrote: > > > > > > Hi > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: > > > > > > > > > Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was > > > defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't > > > find a definition of it in any of them. > > > > > > McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and > > > underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the > > > caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support > > > here. The latter trumps the former, > > > > > > Why? Majority trumps reason? > > > > > > so it should be included in the > > > > > > statement. > > > > > > Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a > main session > > > on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as > Jeremy > > > suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps > more abstract > > > wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of > anything > > > good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal > provisions' would > > > work? > > > > > > jeanette > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > Bill____________________________________________________________ You > > > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org @lists.cpsr.org> To be > removed > > > from the list, send any > > > message to: > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org @lists.cpsr.org> > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org @lists.cpsr.org> > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > > > > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org @lists.cpsr.org> > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 03:30:43 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 04:00:43 -0430 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: References: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B6FCBB3.9010009@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 04:07:28 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:07:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954259bd1002080107i77f2b6e7s2d0f4621e8db5a8@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Following Ian's thread, the following formulation : "T*owards globally-applicable public policy principles*" is directly using the words of the Tunis agenda. Harder to object. Maybe worth giving it a thought. Best Bertrand On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Ian Peter wrote: > I should mention I am advancing this suggestion because it might get > through MAG, not because I think rights are unimportant. Nor to amend what > has been adopted as a general statement. > > And also the gist of it is to discuss basic principles for internet > governance. WSIS gives us a start but perhaps its time to explore what else > needs to be said here. Maybe it comes out as defining basic principles or > something – anyway I am simply seeking a phrase and a topic broad enough to > get MAG on board. > > Ian Peter > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *Ian Peter > *Reply-To: *, Ian Peter > > *Date: *Mon, 08 Feb 2010 12:28:10 +1100 > *To: *, Jeanette Hofmann > > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > Or alternatively, if we talk about > > “towards defining basic principles for internet governance” > > Have we got a way forward? > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From: *Deirdre Williams > *Reply-To: *, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> > *Date: *Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:20:34 -0400 > *To: *, Lee W McKnight > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > If 'rights" is the word that puts people's backs up why not use "human > aspects (or human as opposed to technical aspects) of Internet governance", > as Ginger suggested in the lead message of this string. The terminology > includes rights, but also got frequent mention in the opening of the Sharm > IGF, and, at least by implication, in "including the next billion" in > Hyderabad so should be difficult to simply dismiss. > Deirdre > > On 7 February 2010 20:25, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > I'm with the pragmatist; however Jeanette thinks she can phrase rights (& > principles) to get a main theme at IGF is what I vote for. > ________________________________________ > From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:09 PM > To: Paul Lehto > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; William Drake > Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > > Paul Lehto wrote: > > Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. > > > > Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the > > best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some > > ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't get > > the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, a > > revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of internet > > users. > > I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the > rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost > every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the > WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what you > hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out > on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. > > What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete > organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal > title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. > > I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to heroically > lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic solution that would > allow us to actually design the agenda of the next IGF. > > jeanette > > > > Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever > > random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to > > keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. > > > > All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. > > The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. > > To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number > > of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same extent. > > > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > > > On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public discuss > it - > >> at the consultation and at the main sessions of the Vilnius IGF. > >> Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear and well-phrased > >> enough so that we can better make an issue of it. > >> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that > authoritarians > >> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual > >> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows > >> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. > >> > >> --MM > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com ] > >> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM > >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > >> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder > >> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) > >> > >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main > session > >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy > >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more > abstract > >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of > anything > >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' > would > >> work? " > >> > >> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address it. > >> However, we have not been able to come up with alternate wording. I hope > we > >> can discuss options for interventions at the Monday evening meeting at > Les > >> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other > >> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to > address > >> IRP. > >> > >> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities to > >> consider: > >> > >> legal provisions (Jeanette) > >> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance > >> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance > >> Internet governance and the position of individuals > >> Internet governance and individuals > >> > >> gp > >> > >> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> > >> > >> William Drake wrote: > >> > >> Hi > >> > >> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: > >> > >> > >> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was > >> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't > >> find a definition of it in any of them. > >> > >> McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and > >> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND the > >> caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of support > >> here. The latter trumps the former, > >> > >> Why? Majority trumps reason? > >> > >> so it should be included in the > >> > >> statement. > >> > >> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main > session > >> on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this topic as Jeremy > >> suggests. I said we should be inventive and find new, perhaps more > abstract > >> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of > anything > >> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' > would > >> work? > >> > >> jeanette > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Bill____________________________________________________________ You > >> received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be > removed > >> from the list, send any > >> message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org lists.cpsr.org> > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org lists.cpsr.org> > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Mon Feb 8 04:16:08 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:16:08 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <16978929.54721.1265620568636.JavaMail.www@wwinf1g14> As far as my "vote" is accepted : YES for the 3 topics as formuated by Parminder I'll be at Geneva to-morrow afternoon for preparing the ITU meeting preparing WSIS Forum 2010. My warmest wishes for your good job tu succeed Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 07/02/10 13:15 > De : "Parminder" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Ginger Paque" > Copie à : "William Drake" , "lee.hibbard at coe.int" , "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Ian Peter" , "McTim" > Objet : Re: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 > > Yes to all... > > Ginger Paque wrote: Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > [ message-footer.txt (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shahzad at bytesforall.net Mon Feb 8 08:51:56 2010 From: shahzad at bytesforall.net (Shahzad Ahmad) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:51:56 +0500 Subject: [governance] Fw: [pakistanictpolicy] Pakisan Blocks YouTube again? Message-ID: Forwarded from Pakistan ICT Policy List. The Saga is to not let people see, President saying Shut Up to the audience in one of his public speech :) The rumors of further blocking social media sites is depressing. People are panicking taking backups... worrying indeed. best wishes and regards Shahzad ----- Original Message ----- From: "Awab Alvi" To: "Pakistan Policy group" Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 5:33 PM Subject: [pakistanictpolicy] Zardari's YouTube video blocked > Salam > > Last night, sunday evening, Youtube.com started facing intermittent > reports of inaccessibility. It initially started off with a simple white > page across the entire site saying “This Site is Accessible” the site-wide > inaccessibility lasted for about an hour but after which almost everything > recovered back to normal. > > It was then later reported through a number of online users that the > crackdown by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority was on one > particular video which is of Mr. Asif Ali Zardari saying a very forceful > "Shut Up" to an audience member while he is busy delivering his speech at > a jalsa a few weeks back > > Link to the Blocked Video – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzuHD5×1fEU [a > few other variants have also been blocked] > > There is a strong rumor that more is to follow on various social media > sites specially blogs and facebook (god forbid ;)) - would people have > reports to this extent or can we let them remain as unsubstantiated rumors > > Report posted on - > http://teeth.com.pk/blog/2010/02/08/pta-blocks-zardaris-shut-up-video > > Awab > http://teeth.com.pk/blog > http://dbtb.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From vanda at uol.com.br Mon Feb 8 09:16:46 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (vanda) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:16:46 -0200 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday. In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4b701cce503cb_2305a3e4e7882d@weasel1.tmail> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 09:23:36 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 09:53:36 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4b701cce503cb_2305a3e4e7882d@weasel1.tmail> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4b701cce503cb_2305a3e4e7882d@weasel1.tmail> Message-ID: <4B701E68.2090000@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 09:23:51 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:23:51 +0100 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> References: <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: it would be very indicated also to add *"process of security and protection of intellectual property on the Net*". It is a nebula which it is not very well developed in many emergent countries, more particularly, in Africa. This is the case of the cybercriminality, for example. SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. 2010/2/6 Parminder > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everyone... I just got in to Geneva, and see that there have been no > responses to this. Jeremy, if it is ok with you, I think we should follow up > on Parminder's proposal. > > Parminder: can you write up the actual wording for your proposal? I think > it is better if it comes from someone in the list. If you and Jeremy agree, > we can post: > > Parminder, since there have been no comments, please post your proposed > wording as soon as possible. > > Ginger/ Jeremy/ All, > > See if the following works. (At the airport, leaving for Geneva. So wont be > able to comment any further throughout the day.) > > (proposed statement begins) > > IGC proposes three themes for main sessions for IGF Vilnius: > > Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > Internet Rights and Principles > > It is significant to note that on the themes of Network Neutrality and > Development Agenda workshops have been organized in a few earlier IGFs, > including 3 hour workshops on both of these themes at IGF Sharm.Thus, the > two topics have considerable maturity within the IGF, while constituting > important issues requiring urgent attention of the global IG community. The > dynamic coalition on Internet rights and principles is one of the most > active DC and has done good work in the area of IRP. Including IRP as a main > theme, apart from the theme's intrinsic importance, will be a good way to > mainstreaming the work of DCs in the IGF. > > A brief description of the three proposed themes is given below: > > Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the > Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes > the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social > activities. This main session will examine the implication of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet > policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet > architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the > IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of > IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing > dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in > conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously > has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet > Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced > position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could > entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh > cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at > Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance > mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming > development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance > processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the > Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder > Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development > agenda. > > Internet rights and principles > > A main session on 'Internet rights and principles' would explore a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. While it is relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet bec > oming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in looking at 'internet rights and principles'. > > > The IGC affirms it support and assistance to develop main sessions based on > these themes, and look forward to a fruitful and purposeful IGF Vilnius. > > (Statements ends) > > Parminder > > > > > > > > > > We will then open for comments and call for consensus... unfortunately > probably 24h and 24h due to time constraints. > > Can you guys please try to get back to me asap? > > Thanks! > Ginger > > Parminder wrote: > > I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take this > language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ Open > Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights and principles' > in the list, abstract a short para on it from the earlier statement which is > relatively not very sharp, and in size no longer than the paras on dev > agenda and NN. We shd put it out for a day or so of last comments and then a > final version for a consensus call over 48 hours. > > In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour workshops on > the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized last year, which > represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF > context. And if 'internet rights and principles' is included as a main > theme, that the DC on IRP has been doing good work in this area for > considerable time now, an dis in fact the most active dynamic coalition (the > much celebrated concept in the IGF). > > Parminder > > William Drake wrote: > > Hi > > With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we are > proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea. In the > event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for Hyderabad, and > we really can't use it anymore, it's dated. > > On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote: > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. > Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and Rio > conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted significant, > focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and > development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by civil society > actors in collaboration with the Swiss government, Brazilian Internet > Steering Committee and other partners from all stakeholder groupings on, > “Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.” The workshop > considered the options for establishing a holistic program of analysis and > action that would help mainstream development considerations into Internet > governance decision making processes. > Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on the > topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda > concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this > would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also > support the Swiss government’s proposal to consider establishing a > multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > > How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive > thrust of what was previously agreed: > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance > > Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the > IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of > IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing > dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in > conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously > has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet > Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced > position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could > entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh > cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at > Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance > mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming > development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance > processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the > Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder > Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development > agenda. > > Bill > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 09:31:04 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:01:04 -0430 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: References: <3F8AB112-9D78-4707-8327-6D76044FC583@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B702028.4030905@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 09:37:51 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:07:51 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4b701cce503cb_2305a3e4e7882d@weasel1.tmail> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4b701cce503cb_2305a3e4e7882d@weasel1.tmail> Message-ID: <4B7021BF.70507@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 09:41:33 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:41:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: 1.*Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today*. *YES* 2.A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. *YES* 3.Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. *YES because Internet becomes a more usual technology in the daily life on all aspects. NOT because exponential evolution of mobile technology starts to open horizons for more personalized technology. * SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. 2010/2/7 Ginger Paque > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should > allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva > Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we > have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the > meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as > possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read > together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. > The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent > suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy > in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture > are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of > the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been > posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a > broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for > Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To > address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A > Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have > organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different > visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related > discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main > session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify > the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing > a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic > and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic > Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the > Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From divina.meigs at orange.fr Mon Feb 8 09:48:37 2010 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:48:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B7021BF.70507@gmail.com> Message-ID: Yes, yes and yes divina Le 08/02/10 15:37, « Ginger Paque » a écrit : > Thanks Vanda, and to all 22 people who have answered the call for consensus. > If you have not yet responded to the call, please do so before 10 p.m. GMT > today. Details can be found below. > > Best, Ginger > > >> >> >> >> >> >> Em 07/02/2010 09:40, Ginger Paque < gpaque at gmail.com > escreveu: >> >>> >>> Hello all, >>> I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of >>> electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in >>> Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on >>> Tuesday. >>> >>> With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now >>> making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should >>> allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva >>> Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we >>> have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the >>> meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as >>> possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. >>> >>> I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read >>> together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. >>> The f inal suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent >>> suggestion. >>> >>> An all agreement vote would read: >>> 1: Yes >>> 2: Yes >>> 3: Yes >>> >>> Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. >>> >>> 1. >>> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for >>> the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the >>> Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all >>> business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the >>> focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the >>> Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this >>> principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy >>> in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture >>> are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. >>> >>> 2. >>> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key f ocus of >>> the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been >>> posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a >>> broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for >>> Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To >>> address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A >>> Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have >>> organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different >>> visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related >>> discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main >>> session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify >>> the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and >>> consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF >>> discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also >>> continue to support the Swiss government's pr oposal to consider >>> establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop >>> recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. >>> >>> 3. >>> Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical >>> principles and, increasingly, on the Internet¹s functionality as a giant >>> global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many >>> social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration >>> of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more >>> comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. >>> >>> >>> In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a >>> development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a >>> certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These >>> successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. >>> >>> The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and >>> productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic >>> Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the >>> Vilnius agenda. >>> >>> Thank you very much. >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 09:49:17 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:49:17 +0100 Subject: OFFLIST:Re: [governance] Separate statement on themes for Vilnius In-Reply-To: <4B702028.4030905@paque.net> References: <4B6970AA.4030806@paque.net> <4B69A91E.9020404@itforchange.net> <75379CDA-69EB-4127-BCC7-542D4A91F0B7@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6C0E83.9030203@itforchange.net> <4B6C5C45.6020407@gmail.com> <4B6CC8BA.90407@itforchange.net> <4B702028.4030905@paque.net> Message-ID: it's just a suggestion , Ginger. More details will be send shortly SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 +243811980914 email: b.schombe at gmail.com blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e niveau. 2010/2/8 Ginger Paque > Hi Baudouin, > > Thank you for your comment. It is too late to make a substantive change in > our statement and your concept is not clear to me. Is this a workshop or a > main session suggestion? a call for support? Could you please develop it > more and present it for consideration on the discussion list, please? > > Regards, > Ginger > > Baudouin SCHOMBE wrote: > > it would be very indicated also to add *"process of security and > protection of intellectual property on the Net*". It is a nebula which it > is not very well developed in many emergent countries, more particularly, in > Africa. This is the case of the cybercriminality, for example. > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > GNSO and NCUC MEMBER (ICANN) > > Téléphone mobile: +243998983491/+243999334571 > +243811980914 > email: b.schombe at gmail.com > blog: http://akimambo.unblog.fr > siège temporaire : Boulevard du 30 juin Immeuble Royal, Entrée A,7e > niveau. > > > 2010/2/6 Parminder > >> >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >> >> Hi everyone... I just got in to Geneva, and see that there have been no >> responses to this. Jeremy, if it is ok with you, I think we should follow up >> on Parminder's proposal. >> >> Parminder: can you write up the actual wording for your proposal? I think >> it is better if it comes from someone in the list. If you and Jeremy agree, >> we can post: >> >> Parminder, since there have been no comments, please post your proposed >> wording as soon as possible. >> >> Ginger/ Jeremy/ All, >> >> See if the following works. (At the airport, leaving for Geneva. So wont >> be able to comment any further throughout the day.) >> >> (proposed statement begins) >> >> IGC proposes three themes for main sessions for IGF Vilnius: >> >> Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet >> >> >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >> >> Internet Rights and Principles >> >> It is significant to note that on the themes of Network Neutrality and >> Development Agenda workshops have been organized in a few earlier IGFs, >> including 3 hour workshops on both of these themes at IGF Sharm.Thus, the >> two topics have considerable maturity within the IGF, while constituting >> important issues requiring urgent attention of the global IG community. The >> dynamic coalition on Internet rights and principles is one of the most >> active DC and has done good work in the area of IRP. Including IRP as a main >> theme, apart from the theme's intrinsic importance, will be a good way to >> mainstreaming the work of DCs in the IGF. >> >> A brief description of the three proposed themes is given below: >> >> Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet >> >> Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the >> Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as Internet becomes >> the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social >> activities. This main session will examine the implication of this >> principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations, for Internet >> policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet >> architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. >> >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >> >> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the >> IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of >> IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing >> dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in >> conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously >> has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet >> Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced >> position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could >> entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh >> cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at >> Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance >> mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming >> development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance >> processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the >> Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder >> Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development >> agenda. >> >> Internet rights and principles >> >> A main session on 'Internet rights and principles' would explore a rights-based discourse in the area of Internet Governance. While it is relatively easy to articulate and claim “rights” it is much more difficult to agree on, implement and enforce them. We also recognize that rights claims can sometimes conflict or compete with each other. There can also be uncertainty about the proper application of a rights claim to a factual situation. The change in the technical methods of communication often undermines pre-existing understandings of how to apply legal categories. These complexities, however, only strengthen the case for using the IGF to explicitly discuss and debate these problems. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet bec >> oming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, an alternative foundation and conceptual framework for IG can be explored in looking at 'internet rights and principles'. >> >> >> The IGC affirms it support and assistance to develop main sessions based >> on these themes, and look forward to a fruitful and purposeful IGF Vilnius. >> >> (Statements ends) >> >> Parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We will then open for comments and call for consensus... unfortunately >> probably 24h and 24h due to time constraints. >> >> Can you guys please try to get back to me asap? >> >> Thanks! >> Ginger >> >> Parminder wrote: >> >> I support Bill's draft below... I propose that co-coordinators take this >> language for dev agenda, and the Hyderabad statement's for NN/ Open >> Internet, and if the decision is to include 'Internet rights and principles' >> in the list, abstract a short para on it from the earlier statement which is >> relatively not very sharp, and in size no longer than the paras on dev >> agenda and NN. We shd put it out for a day or so of last comments and then a >> final version for a consensus call over 48 hours. >> >> In the statement we should also mention that special 3 hour workshops on >> the two themes of dev agenda and NN were organized last year, which >> represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF >> context. And if 'internet rights and principles' is included as a main >> theme, that the DC on IRP has been doing good work in this area for >> considerable time now, an dis in fact the most active dynamic coalition (the >> much celebrated concept in the IGF). >> >> Parminder >> >> William Drake wrote: >> >> Hi >> >> With just a few days to go before the OC, I'm not clear if we are >> proceeding with a theme statement or have given up on the idea. In the >> event that it's the former, I just reread what we agreed for Hyderabad, and >> we really can't use it anymore, it's dated. >> >> On Feb 3, 2010, at 5:49 PM, Parminder wrote: >> >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the >> IGF. Development also was listed as a cross-cutting theme of the Athens and >> Rio conferences, but neither featured a main session that devoted >> significant, focused attention to the linkages between Internet governance >> mechanisms and development. However, at Rio a workshop was organized by >> civil society actors in collaboration with the Swiss government, Brazilian >> Internet Steering Committee and other partners from all stakeholder >> groupings on, “Toward a Development Agenda for Internet Governance.” The >> workshop considered the options for establishing a holistic program of >> analysis and action that would help mainstream development considerations >> into Internet governance decision making processes. >> Attendees at this workshop expressed strong interest in further work on >> the topic being pursued in the IGF. Hence, we believe the Development Agenda >> concept should be taken up in a main session at Hyderabad, and that this >> would be of keen interest to a great many participants there. We also >> support the Swiss government’s proposal to consider establishing a >> multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the >> IGF on a development agenda. >> >> >> How about something like this, which doesn't change the substantive >> thrust of what was previously agreed: >> >> A Development Agenda for Internet Governance >> >> Development is a key focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the >> IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of >> IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing >> dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in >> conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously >> has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet >> Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced >> position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could >> entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh >> cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at >> Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance >> mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming >> development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance >> processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the >> Swiss government’'s proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder >> Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development >> agenda. >> >> Bill >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 09:54:19 2010 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 09:54:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <2bd2431a1002080654q762c1757la15b2134601d4cc6@mail.gmail.com> Very interesting the different views on those areas where efforts should be concentrated. The next Wednesday hold the first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum Colombia and moved to this stage all these initiatives. Antonio 2010/2/7 Parminder > Yes to all... > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should > allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva > Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we > have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the > meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as > possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read > together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. > The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent > suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy > in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture > are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus of > the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been > posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a > broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for > Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To > address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A > Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have > organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different > visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related > discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main > session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify > the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider establishing > a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the > IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic > and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic > Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the > Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet. ACUI presidencia at acui.org.co amedinagomez at gmail.com http://www.acui.org.co -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 10:35:17 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:35:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: References: <4B7021BF.70507@gmail.com> Message-ID: I also agree with all 3. Deirdre On 8 February 2010 10:48, Divina MEIGS wrote: > Yes, yes and yes > divina > > > Le 08/02/10 15:37, « Ginger Paque » a écrit : > > Thanks Vanda, and to all 22 people who have answered the call for > consensus. If you have not yet responded to the call, please do so before 10 > p.m. GMT today. Details can be found below. > > Best, Ginger > > > > > > > > Em 07/02/2010 09:40, *Ginger Paque < gpaque at gmail.com >* escreveu: > > > > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should > allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva > Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we > have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the > meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as > possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read > together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. > The f inal suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent > suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy > in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture > are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key f ocus of > the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been > posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a > broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for > Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To > address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A > Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have > organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different > visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related > discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main > session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify > the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > continue to support the Swiss government's pr oposal to consider > establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop > recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many > social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic > and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic > Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the > Vilnius agenda. > > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 8 10:50:02 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:50:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> References: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com>,<4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> >I really, really fail to understand what you >hope to gain from being politically correct but practically losing out >on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main session. I guess I am not convinced that this chance is real. What can you say to convince us otherwise? How can it be real if it involves disguising or coding what we really want to talk about? Consider this: How did we get to discuss CIR in a main session? Because CS intransigently called out the absurdity of a Internet Governance Forum that refused to talk about the key controversies of Internet Governance. AND, we gained some allies among governments, including China, Iran, Russia. So, which governments - and private sector - will support CS in this discssion and make an issue of it? If the answer is no one, then the problem is far deeper than avoiding a few buzzwords. If CS human rights activity can be marginalized and isolated so easily it means that businses and liberal-democratic governments are not raising their voices and putting pressure on their counterparts. >What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete >organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The formal >title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at most. OK, if you are just saying that there are certain buzzwords we can avoid while still getting the same dialogue in a main session then, fine, tell us what those buzzwords are and how to avoid them. "Human rights" is clearly out. Lisa's felicitous suggestion that "human rights and the policy principles needed to implement them" also clearly would not fly. Katitza suggested a discussion of ISP intermediary liability. That one raises rights of users, some freedom of expression and privacy issues, but at a lower level, more embedded in the concrete situation. Can we have a main session on that, and then get advocates of HR and oppoennts of intermediary liability on it? Another concrete: priavcy, accountability and the Whois databases of IP address registries and ICANN. All kinds of debates about "rights" could be had there. --MM____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Mon Feb 8 10:55:19 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:55:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C7F@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> ________________________________________ >> >> “towards defining basic principles for internet governance” > > That's cool. I say it's hot. ;-) Odd thing is, isn't that what IGF is supposed to be all about, anyway? Just for fun, why don't we introduce a faux motion in MAG to delete "Internet governance" from the title of the Forum, see who supports it. It might pass. --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 jeanette at wzb.eu Mon Feb 8 11:17:35 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:17:35 +0000 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B6DBC63.30901@itforchange.net> <4B6E5AF6.90000@itforchange.net> <1F73EC2F-0CF0-4514-83BC-EC0231467A5D@graduateinstitute.ch> <4B6EA95E.1080505@wzb.eu> <4B6EB91A.6060603@paque.net> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C78E58A5@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <76f819dd1002071034i7efc1fccjd0c621dc32eec010@mail.gmail.com>,<4B6F0FEC.7000804@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C7E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B70391F.3050608@wzb.eu> Milton L Mueller wrote: >> I really, really fail to understand what you hope to gain from >> being politically correct but practically losing out on the chance >> to explore the issue of rights in a main session. > > I guess I am not convinced that this chance is real. Not being convinced is something else than telling me that my "argument is pointless". >What can you say to convince us otherwise? How can it be real if it involves disguising or coding what we really want to talk about? I can only repeat what I said several times before. The MAG works by consensus. If one of the members strongly vetoes a proposal, it won't be accepted because going forward with controversial proposals would discredit the working mode of the MAG itself. Thus, we need to find wording that has a chance to be accepted by the various parties. > > Consider this: How did we get to discuss CIR in a main session? > Because CS intransigently called out the absurdity of a Internet > Governance Forum that refused to talk about the key controversies of > Internet Governance. I think you completely over-estimate the authority and power of CS. Again, there were various factors at play that helped making CIR one of the regulator topics of the main sessions. Nitin played an important role in this context, the wording of the Tunis Agenda as well. AND, we gained some allies among governments, > including China, Iran, Russia. So, which governments - and private > sector - Allies are simply not enough, we need at least rough consensus to go forward with any topic for main sessions. The MAG dynamics are very much about finding consensual solutions. If we want to have a say in the IGF's overall agenda, we need to be flexible when it comes to the framing of main sessions. The general topics of the main sessions and the associated bullet points are only the first step. The second one follows later with the fine-tuning of the main sessions and the selection of the speakers. These are all different parameters that can and should be used to influence the actual content of a main session. Having said that, flexibility and willingness to compromise cannot _guarantee_ success. As we all know, we are not the most powerful stakeholder in the MAG. Yet, insisting on language that is not acceptable to one or more of the powerful members, amounts to a guarantee of failure. jeanette will support CS in this discssion and make an issue of it? > > If the answer is no one, then the problem is far deeper than avoiding > a few buzzwords. If CS human rights activity can be marginalized and > isolated so easily it means that businses and liberal-democratic > governments are not raising their voices and putting pressure on > their counterparts. > >> What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete >> organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The >> formal title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at >> most. > > OK, if you are just saying that there are certain buzzwords we can > avoid while still getting the same dialogue in a main session then, > fine, tell us what those buzzwords are and how to avoid them. "Human > rights" is clearly out. Lisa's felicitous suggestion that "human > rights and the policy principles needed to implement them" also > clearly would not fly. > > Katitza suggested a discussion of ISP intermediary liability. That > one raises rights of users, some freedom of expression and privacy > issues, but at a lower level, more embedded in the concrete > situation. Can we have a main session on that, and then get advocates > of HR and oppoennts of intermediary liability on it? > > Another concrete: priavcy, accountability and the Whois databases of > IP address registries and ICANN. All kinds of debates about "rights" > could be had there. > > --MM____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 christopherwilkinson.eu Mon Feb 8 12:24:45 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 18:24:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 p.m GMT Monday. In-Reply-To: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> Message-ID: I agree with the three proposals. Should the authors still wish to improve the text, under 2. please include a reference to financing and under 3. please edit out CW On 07 Feb 2010, at 12:40, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hello all, > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now > in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the > OC on Tuesday. > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am > now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. > This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting > here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and > connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can > email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a > consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is > gingerpaque. > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can > be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in > the order shown. The final suggested closing is an iteration of > Parminder's recent suggestion. > > An all agreement vote would read: > 1: Yes > 2: Yes > 3: Yes > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of > opinions. > > 1. > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with > the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of > the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of > this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for > Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the > Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the > Internet today. > > 2. > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key > focus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while > development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, > they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on > what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in > conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC > previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for > Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops > or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what > such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions > during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main > session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, > identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and > development, and consider options for mainstreaming development > considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance > processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss > government's proposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder > Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a > development agenda. > > 3. > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in > technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s > functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet > becoming increasingly central to many social and political > institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet > rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which > represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the > IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be > build upon in 2010. > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done > dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the > concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address > this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. > Thank you very much. > Best, > Ginger > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Mon Feb 8 13:40:11 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:40:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <4B7021BF.70507@gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4b701cce503cb_2305a3e4e7882d@weasel1.tmail> <4B7021BF.70507@gmail.com> Message-ID: <836320.85573.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Thanks Ginger. I will try to skype in for the meeting  at 8.00 in a short while if I am able....My response is as follows   Yes to all three    regards ...wish I was there with all of you ...:):)   Shaila Rao Mistry Thanks Vanda, and to all 22 people who have answered the call for consensus. If you have not yet responded to the call, please do so before 10 p.m. GMT today. Details can be found below. Best, Ginger From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 6:37:51 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 > > >Em 07/02/2010 09:40, Ginger Paque < gpaque at gmail.com > escreveu: > >>Hello all, >>I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on Tuesday. >> >>With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. >> >>I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. The f inal suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent suggestion. >> >>An all agreement vote would read: >>1: Yes >>2: Yes >>3: Yes >> >>Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. >> >>1. >>Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for >>the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the >>Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all >>business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. >> >>2. >>A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key f ocus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's pr oposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. >> >>3. >>Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. >> >> >>In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. >> >>The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. >> >>Thank you very much. >>Best, >>Ginger >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at cis-india.org Mon Feb 8 14:00:32 2010 From: anja at cis-india.org (anja) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:30:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 In-Reply-To: <836320.85573.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4b701cce503cb_2305a3e4e7882d@weasel1.tmail> <4B7021BF.70507@gmail.com> <836320.85573.qm@web55201.mail.re4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56fed0ad8248f6ae5cf12848e1955e03@cis-india.org> My vote is: Yes to all three. Cheers, Anja On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:40:11 -0800 (PST), shaila mistry wrote: Thanks Ginger. I will try to skype in for the meeting at 8.00 in a short while if I am able....My response is as follows Yes to all three regards ...wish I was there with all of you ...:):) Shaila Rao Mistry ------------------------- From: Ginger Paque To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Mon, February 8, 2010 6:37:51 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until 10 Thanks Vanda, and to all 22 people who have answered the call for consensus. If you have not yet responded to the call, please do so before 10 p.m. GMT today. Details can be found below. Best, Ginger Em 07/02/2010 09:40, Ginger Paque < gpaque at gmail.com [1] > escreveu: Hello all, I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on Tuesday. With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This should allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be read together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order shown. The f inal suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent suggestion. An all agreement vote would read: 1: Yes 2: Yes 3: Yes Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. 1. Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet policy in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet architecture are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. 2. A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key f ocus of the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has been posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a main session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, identify the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also continue to support the Swiss government's pr oposal to consider establishing a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to the IGF on a development agenda. 3. Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to many social and political institutions, we are of the view that a consideration of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic and productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the Vilnius agenda. Thank you very much. Best, Ginger ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org [2] To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org [3] For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t Links: ------ [1] mailto:gpaque at gmail.com [2] mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org [3] mailto:governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 15:57:07 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 02:27:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG meeting tomorrow. Message-ID: Hello Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 Time: 09:30 CET In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, copy-paste this link in your browser: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e No passwords necessary. Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 16:00:48 2010 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:00:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG meeting tomorrow. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> Thx Sivasubramanian, You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have webcast though here :) ) All the Best. Bernard. -- Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello > > Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy to > participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: > > > Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations > Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 > Time: 09:30 CET > > In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, copy-paste > this link in your browser: > > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e > > No passwords necessary. > > Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 16:10:29 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 02:40:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG meeting tomorrow. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello -- Bernard SADAKA has also sent us this additional info: You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have webcast though here :) ) -- Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello > > Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy to > participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: > > > Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations > Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 > Time: 09:30 CET > > In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, copy-paste > this link in your browser: > > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e > > No passwords necessary. > > Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 16:24:04 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:54:04 -0430 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7080F4.4040305@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Mon Feb 8 21:52:53 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 00:52:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation in the Open Consultations Message-ID: Sorry for the cross posting As you know, the Feb 2010 IGF Open Consultations will take place tomorrow, from 9:00 AM to 18:00 PM Geneva time. The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) in cooperation with the IGF Secretariat will make available a moderated chat function for online interaction; the link is http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ and the twitter hashtag that will be used is #IGF10 . Questions may also be sent via email to: sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org Hope to meet you online tomorrow Remote Participation Working Group www.igfremote.info -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 01:42:24 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 09:42:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation in the Open Consultations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Sorry for the cross posting > > > > As you know, the Feb 2010 IGF Open Consultations will take place tomorrow, isn't that today? > from 9:00 AM to 18:00 PM Geneva time. > > > > The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) in cooperation with the IGF > Secretariat will make available a moderated chat function for online > interaction; the link is http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ I see no activity on this page. -- 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 rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 01:44:22 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:44:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation in the Open Consultations Message-ID: <1531510971-1265697921-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1764582197-@bda027.bisx.prodap.on.blackberry> Hi McTim, Remember that there is time difference :) The OC start at 9:00am CET. Rafik ------Original Message------ From: McTim To: governance at lists.cpsr.org To: Marilia Maciel ReplyTo: governance at lists.cpsr.org ReplyTo: McTim Subject: Re: [governance] Remote Participation in the Open Consultations Sent: Feb 9, 2010 15:42 On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: > Sorry for the cross posting > > > > As you know, the Feb 2010 IGF Open Consultations will take place tomorrow, isn't that today? > from 9:00 AM to 18:00 PM Geneva time. > > > > The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) in cooperation with the IGF > Secretariat will make available a moderated chat function for online > interaction; the link is http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ I see no activity on this page. -- 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 BlackBerry from DOCOMO ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Feb 9 02:00:19 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 05:00:19 -0200 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation in the Open Consultations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B710803.2020408@cafonso.ca> McTim, I think there is a small confusion regarding time differences. It is now 08:04 in Geneva, and the meeting starts today, Feb.09, at 10:00 Geneva time. So no surprise there is no activity yet in the chat. frt rgds --c.a. McTim wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:52 AM, Marilia Maciel wrote: >> Sorry for the cross posting >> >> >> >> As you know, the Feb 2010 IGF Open Consultations will take place tomorrow, > > isn't that today? > >> from 9:00 AM to 18:00 PM Geneva time. >> >> >> >> The Remote Participation Working Group (RPWG) in cooperation with the IGF >> Secretariat will make available a moderated chat function for online >> interaction; the link is http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > > I see no activity on this page. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 9 02:06:41 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:06:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation in the Open Consultations In-Reply-To: <4B710803.2020408@cafonso.ca> References: <4B710803.2020408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hi Carlos, On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > McTim, I think there is a small confusion regarding time differences. It is > now 08:04 in Geneva, and the meeting starts today, Feb.09, at 10:00 Geneva > time. So no surprise there is no activity yet in the chat. 10:00 a.m. is useful to know, that's noon for us in East Africa. If it is just a chat room, I expected it to operational...it's already gotten 130+ hits. -- 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 Feb 9 02:16:12 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:16:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Remote Participation in the Open Consultations In-Reply-To: References: <4B710803.2020408@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: apologies for multiple messages Have just rec'd the link to webcast via another list: http://media.lscube.org/live test link: http://media.lscube.org/live/view?what=/live/test -- 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 gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 03:21:51 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:51:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) In-Reply-To: <4B6F17B5.4030107@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <84B2B4EBA5C04663BE9803651C966175@userPC> Hmmm... Realo's vs. Fundi's Was ever thus... M -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 1:13 AM To: Paul Lehto Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) Paul Lehto wrote: > There simply is no action, concrete or otherwise, that is not preceded > by ideas and principles, even if the principles are pragmatism, > hedonism, greed or whatever. I don't deny this but this discussion is not a conceptual one, it is about agenda setting. We discuss the issue of how to make rights and principles the subject of a main session at the next IGF. The MAG works by consensus. We won't get any topic accepted that one or several of the members don't want. I will leave it at that. I am not even sure anymore if we are arguing about the same goals. jeanette Thus, there is no "concrete" without > rights and/or principles, so a preference for "concrete" is not a > "second way", it's just an application of principles to a single > context, with no claim for their broader applicability (whenever > rights or principles are not expressly identified for purposes of > such) > > A "concrete" proposal will have principles (for certain) and may have > rights that underlay its actual text, so the question is, are those > principles and rights that necessarily exist in all cases just > undisclosed in the text of a particular case example, or have the > rights instead been abandoned in favor of some other de facto vision > of internet governance? > > If it is the latter, we can all be thankful that, in the rights we do > have, other people and prior generations did not give up after the > first few rejections. That's the key to success in fields as > disparate as sales, politics, rights and training for the olympic > games. > > Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor > > On 2/7/10, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> Paul Lehto wrote: >>> Milton Mueller is 100% correct: Then let them veto it. >>> >>> Just make sure the wording, in the event of a possible veto, is the >>> best possible thing to be vetoed, so that way it's a win/win in some >>> ways: Either we get the main session, which is a win, or we don't >>> get the main session but instead we get a 'cause celeb' so to speak, >>> a revealing display of hostility to the rights and interests of >>> internet users. >> I am sorry but we have this "revealing display of hostility to the >> rights and interests of internet users" in the transcript of almost >> every open consultation since WSIS. And we had the same stuff in the >> WSIS prepcoms before that. I really, really fail to understand what >> you hope to gain from being politically correct but practically >> losing out on the chance to explore the issue of rights in a main >> session. >> >> What counts in preparing IGFs is the _implementation_, the concrete >> organization of sessions (speakers, topics, moderators, etc). The >> formal title of a session, the buzz words, are symbolic politics at >> most. >> >> I begin to think that many of you find it more satisfying to >> heroically lose on a right cause than negotiating a pragmatic >> solution that would allow us to actually design the agenda of the >> next IGF. >> >> jeanette >>> Without rights, all that's left is market power/money, and whatever >>> random concessions market power/money may wish to make in order to >>> keep a fig leaf of user rights in front of their exposed anatomy. >>> >>> All legitimate political power emanates from rights held by people. >>> The rest is the power of money to distort the discussion of rights. >>> To the extent any entities' power is out of proportion to the number >>> of human supporters, that entity is undemocratic to that same >>> extent. >>> >>> Paul Lehto, Juris Doctor >>> >>> On 2/7/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: >>>> Let them veto it. Make the decision transparent, let the public >>>> discuss it - at the consultation and at the main sessions of the >>>> Vilnius IGF. Just be sure that the call for a rights theme is clear >>>> and well-phrased enough so that we can better make an issue of it. >>>> Instead of using "alternate wording" on the vain hope that authoritarians >>>> can somehow be tricked into participating in a discourse on individual >>>> rights, use even clearer, sharper language to ensure that everyone knows >>>> what is happening when the MAG vetoes it. >>>> >>>> --MM >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Ginger Paque [mailto:gpaque at gmail.com] >>>> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 7:59 AM >>>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >>>> Cc: William Drake; McTim; Parminder >>>> Subject: [governance] Wording to prevent a deadlock (re: Jeanette) >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> "Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a >>>> main session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this >>>> topic as Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find >>>> new, perhaps more abstract >>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>>> anything >>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>>> work? " >>>> >>>> I understand Jeannette's concern, and agree that we need to address >>>> it. However, we have not been able to come up with alternate >>>> wording. I hope we can discuss options for interventions at the >>>> Monday evening meeting at Les >>>> Brasseurs, which will help us find common ground with the other >>>> stakeholders, so that the OC can develop an effective proposal to address >>>> IRP. >>>> >>>> If you have any ideas, please post them. We have some possibilities >>>> to >>>> consider: >>>> >>>> legal provisions (Jeanette) >>>> Human/personal/individual aspects of Internet Governance >>>> Human/personal/individual dimensions of Internet Governance >>>> Internet governance and the position of individuals Internet >>>> governance and individuals >>>> >>>> gp >>>> >>>> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> William Drake wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> On Feb 7, 2010, at 8:51 AM, McTim wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Perhaps you could send me the link to the thread where it was >>>> defined? I've 63 threads in my Inbox containing the term, and can't >>>> find a definition of it in any of them. >>>> >>>> McTim, Parminder, you are both right. R&P is a broad and >>>> underspecified concept, which makes it a bit of a hard sell, AND >>>> the caucus has endorsed it several times and it enjoys a lot of >>>> support here. The latter trumps the former, >>>> >>>> Why? Majority trumps reason? >>>> >>>> so it should be included in the >>>> >>>> statement. >>>> >>>> Just to reiterate what I said, certain MAG members will veto a main >>>> session on rights. I didn't say that we should give up on this >>>> topic as Jeremy suggests. I said we should be inventive and find >>>> new, perhaps more abstract >>>> wording that offers a way out of this deadlock. I cannot think of >>>> anything >>>> good at the moment but perhaps something such as 'legal provisions' would >>>> work? >>>> >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Bill____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be >>>> removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org>>> @lists.cpsr.org> >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Tue Feb 9 06:20:54 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:20:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> Hello Bernard, thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to work. For one, they don't work with Firefox. And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the line... I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this meeting = nil. Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non existent. Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect simultaneously... My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a professional way? The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes the whole IGF process a complete joke. Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". Olivier Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : > Thx Sivasubramanian, > You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have > webcast though here :) ) > All the Best. > Bernard. > -- > Bernard SADAKA > Mobile: +961 3 172377 > Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > Lebanon > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > wrote: > > Hello > > Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make > it easy to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: > > > Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations > Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 > Time: 09:30 CET > > In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, > copy-paste this link in your browser: > > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e > > No passwords necessary. > > Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 06:27:20 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:57:20 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> Message-ID: <4B714698.9070000@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 06:29:34 2010 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:29:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> Message-ID: <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> Dear Olivier, Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF OC: - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/audio: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php - Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, twitter and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ - Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY Let me know if i can help you in any other way... All the best, Bernard -- Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Hello Bernard, > > thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for example), > who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. This is not > meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get some people > to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in congratulatory, > back-patting, empty speech. > > The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to work. > For one, they don't work with Firefox. > And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the > line... > I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work > perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this > meeting = nil. > > Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non > existent. > > Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote > participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect > simultaneously... > > My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder public > participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a professional > way? > The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes the > whole IGF process a complete joke. > Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". > > Olivier > > Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : > > Thx Sivasubramanian, > You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have > webcast though here :) ) > All the Best. > Bernard. > -- > Bernard SADAKA > Mobile: +961 3 172377 > Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > Lebanon > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello >> >> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy >> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >> >> >> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >> Time: 09:30 CET >> >> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >> copy-paste this link in your browser: >> >> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >> >> No passwords necessary. >> >> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> http://www.isocmadras.com >> >> >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 06:38:15 2010 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:38:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <4B714698.9070000@gmail.com> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <4B714698.9070000@gmail.com> Message-ID: <45ed74051002090338j661fdfd8s56a295824361be9d@mail.gmail.com> Hi Ginger I am currently trying to log in .. it is offering only twitter - is that the only way? Warm regards, Linda. On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Olivier, > Sorry you are having these problems. I know it isn't easy. Did you try the > CoverItLive or WebEx that are currently going on? > > We are working on this, and would be interested in your comments privately > in order to try to solve some of these problems. I am on CoverItLive and > Skype (would you like to join us on Skype?) My Skype is gingerpaque. I use > Mozilla Firefox. > > Right now we do have 66 readers, 17 on remote participation (I think maybe, > CiL, not sure) and we do not know how many are watching the webcast. > > We would like your help to try to overcome these problems. Thanks! > Perseverance.... the only way will get better. > > Best, Ginger > > Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > Hello Bernard, > > thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for example), > who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. This is not > meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get some people > to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in congratulatory, > back-patting, empty speech. > > The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to work. > For one, they don't work with Firefox. > And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the > line... > I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work > perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this > meeting = nil. > > Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non > existent. > > Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote > participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect > simultaneously... > > My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder public > participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a professional > way? > The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes the > whole IGF process a complete joke. > Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". > > Olivier > > Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : > > Thx Sivasubramanian, > You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have > webcast though here :) ) > All the Best. > Bernard. > -- > Bernard SADAKA > Mobile: +961 3 172377 > Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > Lebanon > > > > On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello >> >> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy >> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >> >> >> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >> Time: 09:30 CET >> >> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >> copy-paste this link in your browser: >> >> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >> >> No passwords necessary. >> >> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> http://www.isocmadras.com >> >> >> > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Disclaimer: Individual post. LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law / computing / humanities: For identification only: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, ageing, health, values, development, Gray Panthers, Committee on Mental Health Media and ITC, Discrimination SubComs. > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > ICT multiple decades - authored and taught original GML tages - became HTML; developed internet law on cyberlibel, reputation management etc. > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about event or continuing leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. P.S. While still in initial development - you are welcome to visit the startup (not yet with alternative text or captioning) *Respectful Interfaces* website - in order to browse, make requests, join in, and send suggestions to respectful.interfaces at gmail.com. To sample *respectful Interfaces* as an enterprise framework, with references to CCC/UN and WEF, click here: http://wp.me/PFqR6-K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From hongxueipr at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 06:40:55 2010 From: hongxueipr at gmail.com (Hong Xue) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:40:55 +0800 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <54535d541002090340o378e6d5end58a42b3bf036757@mail.gmail.com> Dear Bernard, I just tried each of the links you provided but none of them was working--I've got four "problem loading pages." Hong On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Dear Olivier, > Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF OC: > > Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/audio: > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php > Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, twitter and no > audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ > Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY > > Let me know if i can help you in any other way... > All the best, > Bernard > -- > Bernard SADAKA > Mobile: +961 3 172377 > Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > Lebanon > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > wrote: >> >> Hello Bernard, >> >> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. >> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get >> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in >> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. >> >> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to >> work. >> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the >> line... >> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work >> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this >> meeting = nil. >> >> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non >> existent. >> >> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote >> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect >> simultaneously... >> >> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder >> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a >> professional way? >> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes >> the whole IGF process a complete joke. >> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >> >> Olivier >> >> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >> >> Thx Sivasubramanian, >> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have >> webcast though here :) ) >> All the Best. >> Bernard. >> -- >> Bernard SADAKA >> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >> Lebanon >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello >>> >>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy >>> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>> >>> >>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>> Time: 09:30 CET >>> >>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>> >>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>> >>> No passwords necessary. >>> >>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University www.iipl.org.cn 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 06:40:56 2010 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:40:56 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <45ed74051002090338j661fdfd8s56a295824361be9d@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <4B714698.9070000@gmail.com> <45ed74051002090338j661fdfd8s56a295824361be9d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43c2faf81002090340g4c15e280vfd2f8b2a4574e3b@mail.gmail.com> Linda, you can put your name and post normal comments if you don't want to use twitter.. Best, Bernard -- Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:38 PM, linda misek-falkoff < ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Ginger I am currently trying to log in .. it is offering only twitter - > is that the only way? > Warm regards, Linda. > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 6:27 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Hi Olivier, >> Sorry you are having these problems. I know it isn't easy. Did you try the >> CoverItLive or WebEx that are currently going on? >> >> We are working on this, and would be interested in your comments privately >> in order to try to solve some of these problems. I am on CoverItLive and >> Skype (would you like to join us on Skype?) My Skype is gingerpaque. I use >> Mozilla Firefox. >> >> Right now we do have 66 readers, 17 on remote participation (I think >> maybe, CiL, not sure) and we do not know how many are watching the webcast. >> >> We would like your help to try to overcome these problems. Thanks! >> Perseverance.... the only way will get better. >> >> Best, Ginger >> >> Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> >> Hello Bernard, >> >> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. >> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get >> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in >> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. >> >> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to >> work. >> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the >> line... >> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work >> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this >> meeting = nil. >> >> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non >> existent. >> >> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote >> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect >> simultaneously... >> >> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder >> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a >> professional way? >> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes >> the whole IGF process a complete joke. >> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >> >> Olivier >> >> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >> >> Thx Sivasubramanian, >> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have >> webcast though here :) ) >> All the Best. >> Bernard. >> -- >> Bernard SADAKA >> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >> Lebanon >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello >>> >>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy >>> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>> >>> >>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>> Time: 09:30 CET >>> >>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>> >>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>> >>> No passwords necessary. >>> >>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Disclaimer: Individual post. > LDMF. > Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > > 914 769 3652 > > law / computing / humanities: > > > For identification only: > > > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination > Committee for the > > U.N.; > > World Education Fellowship; > > Member Committees on disability, ageing, health, values, development, > Gray Panthers, Committee on Mental Health Media and ITC, Discrimination > SubComs. > > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International > Disability Caucus; > > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > > ICT multiple decades - authored and taught original GML tages - became > HTML; developed internet law on cyberlibel, reputation management etc. > > Other affiliations on Request. > > > > n.b.: > > > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > > about event or continuing leadership interning). > > > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the > CCC/UN. > > > P.S. While still in initial development - you are welcome to visit the > startup (not yet with alternative text or captioning) *Respectful > Interfaces* website - in order to browse, make requests, join in, and send > suggestions to respectful.interfaces at gmail.com. To sample *respectful > Interfaces* as an enterprise framework, with references to CCC/UN and WEF, > click here: http://wp.me/PFqR6-K > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 06:43:08 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:13:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Ginger Oliver and I had a chat on this topic and I have had some exchanges on twitter with Marilla. Our concern is not to find a temporary solution to participate in the meeting today, it is a general concern, it is about the technical resources required for remote participation, by IGF standards IGF is *THE* Internet forum, a place where the who is who of Internet and all the technical expertise converges and the infrastructure available must be uncompromising. The present standards are a generation behind, there is no room for contention. It is all run by volunteers, yes, but this is not a comment about people, it is a comment about the resources to be committed, about the attention that needs to be paid. IGF needs to consult professionals months in advance to determine the bandwidth and infrastructure requirements, arrange to send experts to the locations days in advance to flawlessly set up the remote participation infrastructure. My suggestion here is that administratively the IGF Secretariat could call for advise from the technical community Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > Dear Olivier, > Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF > OC: > > - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/audio: > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php > - Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, twitter > and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ > - Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY > > Let me know if i can help you in any other way... > All the best, > > Bernard > -- > Bernard SADAKA > Mobile: +961 3 172377 > Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > ------------------------------------------------------ > BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > Lebanon > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >> Hello Bernard, >> >> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. >> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get >> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in >> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. >> >> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to >> work. >> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the >> line... >> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work >> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this >> meeting = nil. >> >> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non >> existent. >> >> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote >> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect >> simultaneously... >> >> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder >> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a >> professional way? >> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes >> the whole IGF process a complete joke. >> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >> >> Olivier >> >> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >> >> Thx Sivasubramanian, >> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have >> webcast though here :) ) >> All the Best. >> Bernard. >> -- >> Bernard SADAKA >> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >> Lebanon >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hello >>> >>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy >>> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>> >>> >>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>> Time: 09:30 CET >>> >>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>> >>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>> >>> No passwords necessary. >>> >>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 06:42:29 2010 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 13:42:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <54535d541002090340o378e6d5end58a42b3bf036757@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> <54535d541002090340o378e6d5end58a42b3bf036757@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43c2faf81002090342p2f841bb8g65032ae75c1e12aa@mail.gmail.com> did you try the mobile version too? http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ -- Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Hong Xue wrote: > Dear Bernard, > > I just tried each of the links you provided but none of them was > working--I've got four "problem loading pages." > > Hong > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > > Dear Olivier, > > Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF > OC: > > > > Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/audio: > > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > > Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: > > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php > > Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, twitter and > no > > audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ > > Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY > > > > Let me know if i can help you in any other way... > > All the best, > > Bernard > > -- > > Bernard SADAKA > > Mobile: +961 3 172377 > > Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > > Lebanon > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello Bernard, > >> > >> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for > >> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation > set-up. > >> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to > get > >> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in > >> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. > >> > >> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to > >> work. > >> For one, they don't work with Firefox. > >> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along > the > >> line... > >> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work > >> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this > >> meeting = nil. > >> > >> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non > >> existent. > >> > >> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote > >> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect > >> simultaneously... > >> > >> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder > >> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a > >> professional way? > >> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes > >> the whole IGF process a complete joke. > >> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". > >> > >> Olivier > >> > >> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : > >> > >> Thx Sivasubramanian, > >> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > >> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have > >> webcast though here :) ) > >> All the Best. > >> Bernard. > >> -- > >> Bernard SADAKA > >> Mobile: +961 3 172377 > >> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > >> Lebanon > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello > >>> > >>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it > easy > >>> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: > >>> > >>> > >>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations > >>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 > >>> Time: 09:30 CET > >>> > >>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, > >>> copy-paste this link in your browser: > >>> > >>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e > >>> > >>> No passwords necessary. > >>> > >>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org > >>> > >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >>> http://www.isocmadras.com > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Dr. Hong Xue > Professor of Law > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > www.iipl.org.cn > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From amedinagomez at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 06:47:42 2010 From: amedinagomez at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antonio_Medina_G=F3mez?=) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 06:47:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2bd2431a1002090347p6723c16cl5cdc69f550305486@mail.gmail.com> I totally agree with what you say Antonio Medina Gómez IGF Colombia 2010/2/9 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Hello Ginger > > Oliver and I had a chat on this topic and I have had some exchanges on > twitter with Marilla. > > Our concern is not to find a temporary solution to participate in the > meeting today, it is a general concern, it is about the technical resources > required for remote participation, by IGF standards > > IGF is *THE* Internet forum, a place where the who is who of Internet and > all the technical expertise converges and the infrastructure available must > be uncompromising. The present standards are a generation behind, there is > no room for contention. > > It is all run by volunteers, yes, but this is not a comment about people, > it is a comment about the resources to be committed, about the attention > that needs to be paid. IGF needs to consult professionals months in advance > to determine the bandwidth and infrastructure requirements, arrange to send > experts to the locations days in advance to flawlessly set up the remote > participation infrastructure. > > My suggestion here is that administratively the IGF Secretariat could call > for advise from the technical community > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > >> Dear Olivier, >> Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF >> OC: >> >> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/audio: >> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: >> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php >> - Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, twitter >> and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ >> - Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY >> >> Let me know if i can help you in any other way... >> All the best, >> >> Bernard >> -- >> Bernard SADAKA >> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >> Lebanon >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> >>> Hello Bernard, >>> >>> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >>> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. >>> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get >>> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in >>> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. >>> >>> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to >>> work. >>> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >>> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the >>> line... >>> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work >>> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this >>> meeting = nil. >>> >>> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non >>> existent. >>> >>> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote >>> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect >>> simultaneously... >>> >>> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder >>> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a >>> professional way? >>> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes >>> the whole IGF process a complete joke. >>> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >>> >>> Olivier >>> >>> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >>> >>> Thx Sivasubramanian, >>> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have >>> webcast though here :) ) >>> All the Best. >>> Bernard. >>> -- >>> Bernard SADAKA >>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>> Lebanon >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello >>>> >>>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy >>>> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>>> >>>> >>>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>>> Time: 09:30 CET >>>> >>>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>>> >>>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>>> >>>> No passwords necessary. >>>> >>>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Antonio Medina Gomez Presidente Asociación Colombiana de Usuarios de Internet. ACUI presidencia at acui.org.co amedinagomez at gmail.com http://www.acui.org.co -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 07:06:25 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 08:06:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <54535d541002090340o378e6d5end58a42b3bf036757@mail.gmail.com> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> <54535d541002090340o378e6d5end58a42b3bf036757@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Coveritlive just suddenly began to work - not sure why. I had bad problems initially. Deirdre On 9 February 2010 07:40, Hong Xue wrote: > Dear Bernard, > > I just tried each of the links you provided but none of them was > working--I've got four "problem loading pages." > > Hong > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > > Dear Olivier, > > Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF > OC: > > > > Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/audio: > > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > > Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: > > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php > > Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, twitter and > no > > audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ > > Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY > > > > Let me know if i can help you in any other way... > > All the best, > > Bernard > > -- > > Bernard SADAKA > > Mobile: +961 3 172377 > > Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > > Lebanon > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello Bernard, > >> > >> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for > >> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation > set-up. > >> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to > get > >> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in > >> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. > >> > >> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to > >> work. > >> For one, they don't work with Firefox. > >> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along > the > >> line... > >> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work > >> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this > >> meeting = nil. > >> > >> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non > >> existent. > >> > >> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote > >> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect > >> simultaneously... > >> > >> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder > >> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a > >> professional way? > >> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes > >> the whole IGF process a complete joke. > >> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". > >> > >> Olivier > >> > >> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : > >> > >> Thx Sivasubramanian, > >> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ > >> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have > >> webcast though here :) ) > >> All the Best. > >> Bernard. > >> -- > >> Bernard SADAKA > >> Mobile: +961 3 172377 > >> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com > >> ------------------------------------------------------ > >> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer > >> Lebanon > >> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello > >>> > >>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it > easy > >>> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: > >>> > >>> > >>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations > >>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 > >>> Time: 09:30 CET > >>> > >>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, > >>> copy-paste this link in your browser: > >>> > >>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e > >>> > >>> No passwords necessary. > >>> > >>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org > >>> > >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >>> http://www.isocmadras.com > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Dr. Hong Xue > Professor of Law > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > Beijing Normal University > www.iipl.org.cn > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > Beijing 100875 China > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mariliamaciel at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 08:01:23 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:01:23 -0200 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Oliver, Sivasubramanian and all, I am gald to read this thread and criticism/suggestions here in the list. For some time now the Remote Participation Working Group has been urging for more involvement from this community and for other stakeholder groups to help putting in place remote participation. So far, everybody seemed to be very comfortable that a bunch of crazy people volunteered and gave up their time to push remote participation forward. Not we are starting to recognize the obvious. This is a huge structure that cannot put in place properly without consistent community involvement and professional dedication. We should always bear in mind, nevertheless, that we can look to remote participation from two different perspectives: 1- Of what has been accomplished. If you look back, you will remember that we departed from a single pre-moderated chat for RP, and now we have a multitude of channels (main platform during IGF meetings, Cover It Live, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube channels), with the comments and questions being displayed in the large screen in the meetings, for everybody to see. This is a considerable enhancement in terms of transparency, specially if you consider that we are in a UN environment. In 2008 people reported problems with webcast transmission during the IGF, which hampered proper participation. In 2009, the quality of the webcast has improved (according to all remote participants that provided us feedback). In 2010 we are talking about improving quality of interaction. This shows that we are not stuck, we are moving forward. There has been constant improvement from year to year and that should be acknowledged. 2- On what still needs to be accomplished (considering the scarce resources of the IGF, but considering also the potential of the IG community) - More multistakeholder involvement, especially from the technical community and the MAG - Earlier planning, with the involvement of professionals, host, Secretariat and a group of interested people - Trained remote moderators, assigned at least one month before the event. - Remote participation has to be taken into account by workshop organizers in the planning of the dynamics of their workshop. Wks organizers and moderators are responsible for bringing in the questions from remote participants, helping to improve the quality of interaction. If anybody has suggestions on how to improve remote participation, please get in touch with the Remote Participation Working Group and the IGF Secretariat. Speaking for the group, we are more then happy to exchange ideas and receive suggestions from the experienced members of this community. I am looking forward to continuing this discussion. This is the first step to make e-participation a policy theme in the IGF, as we suggested in our statement to the open consultations. Best wishes, Marília marilia.maciel at gmail.com www.igfremote.info On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello Ginger > > Oliver and I had a chat on this topic and I have had some exchanges on > twitter with Marilla. > > Our concern is not to find a temporary solution to participate in the > meeting today, it is a general concern, it is about the technical resources > required for remote participation, by IGF standards > > IGF is *THE* Internet forum, a place where the who is who of Internet and > all the technical expertise converges and the infrastructure available must > be uncompromising. The present standards are a generation behind, there is > no room for contention. > > It is all run by volunteers, yes, but this is not a comment about people, > it is a comment about the resources to be committed, about the attention > that needs to be paid. IGF needs to consult professionals months in advance > to determine the bandwidth and infrastructure requirements, arrange to send > experts to the locations days in advance to flawlessly set up the remote > participation infrastructure. > > My suggestion here is that administratively the IGF Secretariat could call > for advise from the technical community > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > >> Dear Olivier, >> Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF >> OC: >> >> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/audio: >> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: >> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php >> - Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, twitter >> and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ >> - Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY >> >> Let me know if i can help you in any other way... >> All the best, >> >> Bernard >> -- >> Bernard SADAKA >> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >> Lebanon >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> >>> Hello Bernard, >>> >>> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >>> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. >>> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get >>> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in >>> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. >>> >>> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to >>> work. >>> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >>> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the >>> line... >>> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work >>> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this >>> meeting = nil. >>> >>> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non >>> existent. >>> >>> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote >>> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect >>> simultaneously... >>> >>> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder >>> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a >>> professional way? >>> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes >>> the whole IGF process a complete joke. >>> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >>> >>> Olivier >>> >>> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >>> >>> Thx Sivasubramanian, >>> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have >>> webcast though here :) ) >>> All the Best. >>> Bernard. >>> -- >>> Bernard SADAKA >>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>> Lebanon >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello >>>> >>>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy >>>> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>>> >>>> >>>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>>> Time: 09:30 CET >>>> >>>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>>> >>>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>>> >>>> No passwords necessary. >>>> >>>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 09:15:11 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 09:45:11 -0430 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B716DEF.9070103@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 09:18:32 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 19:48:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <4B716DEF.9070103@paque.net> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> <4B716DEF.9070103@paque.net> Message-ID: Ginger, These comments are comments are not posted for discussion in today's meetings. Think of this discussion as a sideline discussion during the review process, to take further shape as a concrete proposal. Yes, we will send this to the Secretariat as a suggestion. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Good point, Shiva, and one many have made at the OC this morning. We are > now past the time for this agenda point, and are moving on to agenda. We are > not looking for a solution for today, but for participation in a process. I > suggest that you send this comment directly to the IGF secretariat, and I > know the RPWG will take it under consideration. > > Best, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Ginger > > Oliver and I had a chat on this topic and I have had some exchanges on > twitter with Marilla. > > Our concern is not to find a temporary solution to participate in the > meeting today, it is a general concern, it is about the technical resources > required for remote participation, by IGF standards > > IGF is *THE* Internet forum, a place where the who is who of Internet and > all the technical expertise converges and the infrastructure available must > be uncompromising. The present standards are a generation behind, there is > no room for contention. > > It is all run by volunteers, yes, but this is not a comment about people, > it is a comment about the resources to be committed, about the attention > that needs to be paid. IGF needs to consult professionals months in advance > to determine the bandwidth and infrastructure requirements, arrange to send > experts to the locations days in advance to flawlessly set up the remote > participation infrastructure. > > My suggestion here is that administratively the IGF Secretariat could > call for advise from the technical community > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: > >> Dear Olivier, >> Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF >> OC: >> >> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/audio: >> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: >> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php >> - Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, twitter >> and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ >> - Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY >> >> Let me know if i can help you in any other way... >> All the best, >> >> Bernard >> -- >> Bernard SADAKA >> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >> Lebanon >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> >>> Hello Bernard, >>> >>> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >>> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. >>> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get >>> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in >>> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. >>> >>> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to >>> work. >>> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >>> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along the >>> line... >>> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work >>> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this >>> meeting = nil. >>> >>> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non >>> existent. >>> >>> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote >>> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect >>> simultaneously... >>> >>> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder >>> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a >>> professional way? >>> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes >>> the whole IGF process a complete joke. >>> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >>> >>> Olivier >>> >>> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >>> >>> Thx Sivasubramanian, >>> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have >>> webcast though here :) ) >>> All the Best. >>> Bernard. >>> -- >>> Bernard SADAKA >>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>> Lebanon >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello >>>> >>>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it easy >>>> to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>>> >>>> >>>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>>> Time: 09:30 CET >>>> >>>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>>> >>>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>>> >>>> No passwords necessary. >>>> >>>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jamelatude at yahoo.fr Tue Feb 9 10:18:58 2010 From: jamelatude at yahoo.fr (khemakhem jamel) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:18:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Sad News Message-ID: <493415.19617.qm@web24615.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Am sorry i didn't inform you about my urgent trip to London, i don't have much time on the PC here,so i have to brief you my present situation which requires your urgent response actually, I had a trip to London but unfortunately for me all my money got stolen at the hotel where i lodged due to a robbery incident that happened in the hotel.I had been so restless since last night because i have been without any money moreover the Hotel's telephone lines here got disconnected by the robbers and they are trying to get them fixed back i have access to only email the library because my mobile cant work here so i didn't bring it along,please i want you to help me with money so please can you send me 850 Pounds or any amount you can afford so when i return back i would refund it back to you as soon as i get home,Am so confused right now and don't know what to do, I had been to the embassy and they are currently looking into my case,Please send the money through Western Union Money Transfer so i will get it immediately its sent,i want you to please transfer the money as soon as possible.Here is the details you need for the transfer below,   Receivers Names: jameleddine khemakhem Receivers Address: 328 Mile End Road City- London Country- UK Zip Code- E1 4NS   Please get back to me as soon as you have the money sent,once you are done with the transfer just help me to scan a copy of the receipt given to you by Western Union or help me to write out the Money Transfer Control Number(MTCN) I will be waiting for your help. Thank you so much,   Best Regards   jameleddine khemakhem   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jamelatude at yahoo.fr Tue Feb 9 10:20:00 2010 From: jamelatude at yahoo.fr (khemakhem jamel) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:20:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] Sad News Message-ID: <25441.72967.qm@web24601.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Am sorry i didn't inform you about my urgent trip to London, i don't have much time on the PC here,so i have to brief you my present situation which requires your urgent response actually, I had a trip to London but unfortunately for me all my money got stolen at the hotel where i lodged due to a robbery incident that happened in the hotel.I had been so restless since last night because i have been without any money moreover the Hotel's telephone lines here got disconnected by the robbers and they are trying to get them fixed back i have access to only email the library because my mobile cant work here so i didn't bring it along,please i want you to help me with money so please can you send me 850 Pounds or any amount you can afford so when i return back i would refund it back to you as soon as i get home,Am so confused right now and don't know what to do, I had been to the embassy and they are currently looking into my case,Please send the money through Western Union Money Transfer so i will get it immediately its sent,i want you to please transfer the money as soon as possible.Here is the details you need for the transfer below,   Receivers Names: jameleddine khemakhem Receivers Address: 328 Mile End Road City- London Country- UK Zip Code- E1 4NS   Please get back to me as soon as you have the money sent,once you are done with the transfer just help me to scan a copy of the receipt given to you by Western Union or help me to write out the Money Transfer Control Number(MTCN) I will be waiting for your help. Thank you so much,   Best Regards   jameleddine khemakhem   -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 10:24:02 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:24:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sad news? Message-ID: Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? I wonder how it got through Deirdre -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From sdkaaa at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 10:24:58 2010 From: sdkaaa at gmail.com (Bernard Sadaka) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 17:24:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43c2faf81002090724y2530a08bp4f52eae5fd4a12c6@mail.gmail.com> yes it is i have reported it... thx deirdre... -- Bernard SADAKA Mobile: +961 3 172377 Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com ------------------------------------------------------ BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer Lebanon On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? > I wonder how it got through > Deirdre > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Feb 9 10:37:25 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:37:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> Is the list open to anyone now? Let us prepare for another flurry of trolls... --c.a. Deirdre Williams wrote: > Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? > I wonder how it got through > Deirdre > > -- > “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 fouadbajwa at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 10:40:01 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 20:40:01 +0500 Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f71002090740r425efe3g8741b89223f69f26@mail.gmail.com> Hey someone did this same hoax with my name in 2007 to my organization board so its a proper hoax/fraud program!!!!! Please be aware!!!!!!!!!! On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? > I wonder how it got through > Deirdre > > -- > “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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From babatope at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 10:28:45 2010 From: babatope at gmail.com (Babatope Soremi) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:28:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Sad News In-Reply-To: <493415.19617.qm@web24615.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <493415.19617.qm@web24615.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Dear Jamel, You must be a very silly person sending this. List moderators, Can we adjust our security settings, pls On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:18 PM, khemakhem jamel wrote: > Am sorry i didn't inform you about my urgent trip to London, i don't have > much time on the PC here,so i have to brief you my present situation which > requires your urgent response actually, I had a trip to London but > unfortunately for me all my money got stolen at the hotel where i lodged due > to a robbery incident that happened in the hotel.I had been so restless > since last night because i have been without any money moreover the Hotel's > telephone lines here got disconnected by the robbers and they are trying to > get them fixed back i have access to only email the library because my > mobile cant work here so i didn't bring it along,please i want you to help > me with money so please can you send me 850 Pounds or any amount you can > afford so when i return back i would refund it back to you as soon as i get > home,Am so confused right now and don't know what to do, I had been to the > embassy and they are currently looking into my case,Please send the money > through Western Union Money Transfer so i will get it immediately its sent,i > want you to please transfer the money as soon as possible.Here is the > details you need for the transfer below, > > Receivers Names: jameleddine khemakhem > Receivers Address: 328 Mile End Road > City- London > Country- UK > Zip Code- E1 4NS > > Please get back to me as soon as you have the money sent,once you are done > with the transfer just help me to scan a copy of the receipt given to you by > Western Union or help me to write out the Money Transfer Control > Number(MTCN) > I will be waiting for your help. Thank you so much, > > Best Regards > > jameleddine khemakhem > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Babatope Soremi I'm totally sold out to changing my world for good.... Register your Domain: (http://www.nairahost.com.ng/ngclient/aff.php?aff=007 You can't give what you don't have........ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 12:50:38 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:20:38 -0430 Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> References: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4B71A06E.1040501@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Feb 9 13:19:47 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:19:47 -0200 Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: <4B71A06E.1040501@paque.net> References: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> <4B71A06E.1040501@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B71A743.5060305@cafonso.ca> Ginger, fine, our LA&C list also is (with subscriptions checked by the moderation before people start posting, at least to check if emails are real), but this seems a spam which hit the list and just got through. frt rgds --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > This IS an open list, yes, it is open to anyone. I will check the > charter and take action. Perhaps this should be discussed? > Best, Ginger > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Is the list open to anyone now? Let us prepare for another flurry of >> trolls... >> >> --c.a. >> >> Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? >>> I wonder how it got through >>> Deirdre >>> >>> -- >>> “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 >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 13:25:15 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:55:15 -0430 Subject: [governance] Sad news? Action taken In-Reply-To: <4B71A743.5060305@cafonso.ca> References: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> <4B71A06E.1040501@paque.net> <4B71A743.5060305@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4B71A88B.4060409@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Feb 9 13:43:16 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 09 Feb 2010 16:43:16 -0200 Subject: [governance] Sad news? Action taken In-Reply-To: <4B71A88B.4060409@paque.net> References: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> <4B71A06E.1040501@paque.net> <4B71A743.5060305@cafonso.ca> <4B71A88B.4060409@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B71ACC4.40001@cafonso.ca> Great, Ginger. frt rgds --c.a. Ginger Paque wrote: > The email "Sad news" was sent from email account that has been a > member of the mailing list since June 2008. Due to the severity of the > problem, I have taken the very unusual step of suspending the email > address while we investigate this situation by private email (offlist). > > It may be the case of an unauthorized use of the email address, or other > glitch. In any case, the situation must be reviewed. > > I apologize for the inconvenience and breech. > > Regards, > Ginger > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Ginger, fine, our LA&C list also is (with subscriptions checked by the >> moderation before people start posting, at least to check if emails >> are real), but this seems a spam which hit the list and just got through. >> >> frt rgds >> >> --c.a. >> >> Ginger Paque wrote: >>> This IS an open list, yes, it is open to anyone. I will check the >>> charter and take action. Perhaps this should be discussed? >>> Best, Ginger >>> >>> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>>> Is the list open to anyone now? Let us prepare for another flurry of >>>> trolls... >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> Deirdre Williams wrote: >>>>> Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? >>>>> I wonder how it got through >>>>> Deirdre >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> “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 >>>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Feb 9 14:00:45 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:00:45 +0700 Subject: WARNING - FRAUD - Re: [governance] Sad News In-Reply-To: <493415.19617.qm@web24615.mail.ird.yahoo.com> References: <493415.19617.qm@web24615.mail.ird.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4B71B0DD.8030904@gmx.net> This is almost the exact wording a friend of mine got recently - it was a fraud - but friendly people had sent already all together over US$4,000 to a Western Union dependency, and before the problem could be clarified, the $4,000 had already been cashed. At that time, the criminals had got access to the password of the victim (and changed it), so that all mail to the victim did not go to the victim, but to the criminals who knew the situation and all the addresses in the address book of the victim, so they continued to correspond "nicely" and in a seemingly informed way. Which meant that not only $2,000, but even an additional $2,000 were sent, before the well-meaning friends could be warned - too late. Any e-mail to "khemakhem jamel" would at present probably go to the criminal, who will respond friendly, pretending that they are "khemakhem jamel" If anybody has a phone number of "khemakhem jamel" - please call soonest. Norbert Klein Phnom Penh/Cambodia khemakhem jamel wrote: > Am sorry i didn't inform you about my urgent trip to London, i don't > have much time on the PC here,so i have to brief you my present > situation which requires your urgent response actually, I had a trip > to London but unfortunately for me all my money got stolen at the > hotel where i lodged due to a robbery incident that happened in the > hotel.I had been so restless since last night because i have been > without any money moreover the Hotel's telephone lines here got > disconnected by the robbers and they are trying to get them fixed back > i have access to only email the library because my mobile cant work > here so i didn't bring it along,please i want you to help me with > money so please can you send me 850 Pounds or any amount you can > afford so when i return back i would refund it back to you as soon as > i get home,Am so confused right now and don't know what to do, I had > been to the embassy and they are currently looking into my case,Please > send the money through Western Union Money Transfer so i will get it > immediately its sent,i want you to please transfer the money as soon > as possible.Here is the details you need for the transfer below, > > Receivers Names: jameleddine khemakhem > Receivers Address: 328 Mile End Road > City- London > Country- UK > Zip Code- E1 4NS > > Please get back to me as soon as you have the money sent,once you are > done with the transfer just help me to scan a copy of the receipt > given to you by Western Union or help me to write out the Money > Transfer Control Number(MTCN) > I will be waiting for your help. Thank you so much, > > Best Regards > > jameleddine khemakhem > > > -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: The Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption Declaration Sunday, 7.2.2010 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1hd (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Feb 9 14:10:08 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:10:08 +0700 Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> References: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4B71B310.1060901@gmx.net> This mail was sent from the stolen account of the person whose name appears in the mail. It will get through all filters and participants' lists, because it is a correct senders address (which has been stolen). In the case a friend of mine suffered, they had (stupidly) given the account password in response to a mail which pretended to come from their ISP (in that case a fake Yahoo admin address). I asked: "Why did you send them their password?" "Well, they threatened that my account will be closed if I do not send it." I thought EVERYBODY knows that one should not send the password by mail, NEVER. Norbert Klein = Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Is the list open to anyone now? Let us prepare for another flurry of > trolls... > > --c.a. > > Deirdre Williams wrote: >> Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? >> I wonder how it got through >> Deirdre -- If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: The Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption Declaration Sunday, 7.2.2010 http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1hd (to read it, click on the line above.) And here is something new every day: http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 14:24:50 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 21:24:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: <4B71B310.1060901@gmx.net> References: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> <4B71B310.1060901@gmx.net> Message-ID: Norbert And how do you know it was stolen? Have you spoken to the owner? The owner's machine could just as well be infected with a programme that automatically sends out mail to the list of contacts. Cada coisa! Rui On 9 February 2010 21:10, Norbert Klein wrote: > This mail was sent from the stolen account of the person whose name > appears in the mail. It will get through all filters and participants' > lists, because it is a correct senders address (which has been stolen). > > In the case a friend of mine suffered, they had (stupidly) given the > account password in response to a mail which pretended to come from > their ISP (in that case a fake Yahoo admin address). > > I asked: "Why did you send them their password?" > > "Well, they threatened that my account will be closed if I do not send it." > > I thought EVERYBODY knows that one should not send the password by mail, > NEVER. > > > Norbert Klein > Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 14:32:09 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 21:32:09 +0200 Subject: WARNING - FRAUD - Re: [governance] Sad News In-Reply-To: <4B71B0DD.8030904@gmx.net> References: <493415.19617.qm@web24615.mail.ird.yahoo.com> <4B71B0DD.8030904@gmx.net> Message-ID: Norbert I am fascinated by your emails! First you assure us (in a different email) that the email address has been stolen. Now you tell us that in a similar case, people sent $4,000.00 to the scammer pleading help.How do you know? And by way, the guy was asking for only GBP 750 (US$ 1,120) - why did your friends send him US$ 4,000? Rui On 9 February 2010 21:00, Norbert Klein wrote: > This is almost the exact wording a friend of mine got recently - it was > a fraud - but friendly people had sent already all together over > US$4,000 to a Western Union dependency, and before the problem could be > clarified, the $4,000 had already been cashed. > > At that time, the criminals had got access to the password of the victim > (and changed it), so that all mail to the victim did not go to the > victim, but to the criminals who knew the situation and all the > addresses in the address book of the victim, so they continued to > correspond "nicely" and in a seemingly informed way. Which meant that > not only $2,000, but even an additional $2,000 were sent, before the > well-meaning friends could be warned - too late. > > Any e-mail to "khemakhem jamel" would at present probably go to the > criminal, who will respond friendly, pretending that they are "khemakhem > jamel" > > If anybody has a phone number of "khemakhem jamel" - please call soonest. > > > Norbert Klein > Phnom Penh/Cambodia > > khemakhem jamel wrote: > > Am sorry i didn't inform you about my urgent trip to London, i don't > > have much time on the PC here,so i have to brief you my present > > situation which requires your urgent response actually, I had a trip > > to London but unfortunately for me all my money got stolen at the > > hotel where i lodged due to a robbery incident that happened in the > > hotel.I had been so restless since last night because i have been > > without any money moreover the Hotel's telephone lines here got > > disconnected by the robbers and they are trying to get them fixed back > > i have access to only email the library because my mobile cant work > > here so i didn't bring it along,please i want you to help me with > > money so please can you send me 850 Pounds or any amount you can > > afford so when i return back i would refund it back to you as soon as > > i get home,Am so confused right now and don't know what to do, I had > > been to the embassy and they are currently looking into my case,Please > > send the money through Western Union Money Transfer so i will get it > > immediately its sent,i want you to please transfer the money as soon > > as possible.Here is the details you need for the transfer below, > > > > Receivers Names: jameleddine khemakhem > > Receivers Address: 328 Mile End Road > > City- London > > Country- UK > > Zip Code- E1 4NS > > > > Please get back to me as soon as you have the money sent,once you are > > done with the transfer just help me to scan a copy of the receipt > > given to you by Western Union or help me to write out the Money > > Transfer Control Number(MTCN) > > I will be waiting for your help. Thank you so much, > > > > Best Regards > > > > jameleddine khemakhem > > > > > > > > -- > If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit > The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English. > > This is the latest weekly editorial of the Mirror: > > The Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption Declaration > Sunday, 7.2.2010 > > http://wp.me/p2Gyf-1hd > (to read it, click on the line above.) > > And here is something new every day: > http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 14:59:31 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:59:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sad news? Action taken In-Reply-To: <4B71A88B.4060409@paque.net> References: <4B718135.3030208@cafonso.ca> <4B71A06E.1040501@paque.net> <4B71A743.5060305@cafonso.ca> <4B71A88B.4060409@paque.net> Message-ID: By no means your fault, but a good move I think, from everyone's point of view. The first one of these I ever received was "from" someone sufficiently my friend that I would have come to the rescue if they really had been stuck in London. It seemed such a convincing story - I felt so mean for going to investigate first. I'm glad I did. And of course the person herself knew nothing about it at all. Cheers Deirdre On 9 February 2010 14:25, Ginger Paque wrote: > The email "Sad news" was sent from email account that has been a member > of the mailing list since June 2008. Due to the severity of the problem, I > have taken the very unusual step of suspending the email address while we > investigate this situation by private email (offlist). > > It may be the case of an unauthorized use of the email address, or other > glitch. In any case, the situation must be reviewed. > > I apologize for the inconvenience and breech. > > Regards, > > Ginger > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Ginger, fine, our LA&C list also is (with subscriptions checked by the > moderation before people start posting, at least to check if emails are > real), but this seems a spam which hit the list and just got through. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > This IS an open list, yes, it is open to anyone. I will check the > charter and take action. Perhaps this should be discussed? > Best, Ginger > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > > Is the list open to anyone now? Let us prepare for another flurry of > trolls... > > --c.a. > > Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? > I wonder how it got through > Deirdre > > -- > “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 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 15:50:44 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:20:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: <701af9f71002090740r425efe3g8741b89223f69f26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <04B6A0492A5747FB94212D69629B5540@userPC> And on my mother's email address to her friends... "So how could a son let his mother get into a situation where she has to resort to begging her friends for help... ;-( M -----Original Message----- From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:10 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Sad news? Hey someone did this same hoax with my name in 2007 to my organization board so its a proper hoax/fraud program!!!!! Please be aware!!!!!!!!!! On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? > I wonder how it got through > Deirdre > > -- > “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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 15:56:00 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 16:56:00 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: BEWARE!!! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This arrived from another friend just after the Sad News exchange :-) It's obviously in the air! Deirdre ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Catherine Albert Date: 9 February 2010 16:11 Subject: BEWARE!!! Hi All, Someone is using my yahoo address to solicit money on my behalf. Disregard, disregard, disregard. Best Wishes Catherine Albert ** ------------------------------ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Tue Feb 9 16:15:04 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:45:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: <701af9f71002090740r425efe3g8741b89223f69f26@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3E3950207A304E50A9EC1A49B619661B@userPC> And on my mother's email address to her friends... "So how could a son let his mother get into a situation where she has to resort to begging her friends for help... ;-( M -----Original Message----- From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:10 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Sad news? Hey someone did this same hoax with my name in 2007 to my organization board so its a proper hoax/fraud program!!!!! Please be aware!!!!!!!!!! On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? > I wonder how it got through > Deirdre > > -- > “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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From shailam at yahoo.com Tue Feb 9 17:01:30 2010 From: shailam at yahoo.com (shaila mistry) Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 14:01:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Sad news? In-Reply-To: <3E3950207A304E50A9EC1A49B619661B@userPC> References: <3E3950207A304E50A9EC1A49B619661B@userPC> Message-ID: <626529.74897.qm@web55208.mail.re4.yahoo.com> I too received a similar email from some one who was using my close friends email. Asking for money under the pretext of troubles. I WAS alarmed at her plight. But did some checking first! Shaila ________________________________ From: michael gurstein To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa ; Deirdre Williams Sent: Tue, February 9, 2010 1:15:04 PM Subject: RE: [governance] Sad news? And on my mother's email address to her friends... "So how could a son let his mother get into a situation where she has to resort to begging her friends for help... ;-( M -----Original Message----- From: Fouad Bajwa [mailto:fouadbajwa at gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2010 9:10 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] Sad news? Hey someone did this same hoax with my name in 2007 to my organization board so its a proper hoax/fraud program!!!!! Please be aware!!!!!!!!!! On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Deirdre Williams wrote: > Isn't this a hoax/spam/phishing??? > I wonder how it got through > Deirdre > > -- > “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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mail at christopherwilkinson.eu Wed Feb 10 05:40:07 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 11:40:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> <4B716DEF.9070103@paque.net> Message-ID: <38FE63EE-D385-4419-94B5-6854B129C8A8@christopherwilkinson.eu> Well, that does not work. There is no video atall. The video link leads to an advertisement from VideoLAN. The VCL mediaplayer download offered does not improve matters. The Chat is Read Only. Who is ? How did Chennai post their interesting question? I notice that nobody else has found out how to enter meaningful text into the Chat. Regards, CW On 09 Feb 2010, at 15:18, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Ginger, > > These comments are comments are not posted for discussion in today's > meetings. Think of this discussion as a sideline discussion during > the review process, to take further shape as a concrete proposal. > Yes, we will send this to the Secretariat as a suggestion. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Good point, Shiva, and one many have made at the OC this morning. We > are now past the time for this agenda point, and are moving on to > agenda. We are not looking for a solution for today, but for > participation in a process. I suggest that you send this comment > directly to the IGF secretariat, and I know the RPWG will take it > under consideration. > > Best, > Ginger > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> Oliver and I had a chat on this topic and I have had some exchanges >> on twitter with Marilla. >> >> Our concern is not to find a temporary solution to participate in >> the meeting today, it is a general concern, it is about the >> technical resources required for remote participation, by IGF >> standards >> >> IGF is *THE* Internet forum, a place where the who is who of >> Internet and all the technical expertise converges and the >> infrastructure available must be uncompromising. The present >> standards are a generation behind, there is no room for contention. >> >> It is all run by volunteers, yes, but this is not a comment about >> people, it is a comment about the resources to be committed, about >> the attention that needs to be paid. IGF needs to consult >> professionals months in advance to determine the bandwidth and >> infrastructure requirements, arrange to send experts to the >> locations days in advance to flawlessly set up the remote >> participation infrastructure. >> >> My suggestion here is that administratively the IGF Secretariat >> could call for advise from the technical community >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> http://www.isocmadras.com >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Bernard Sadaka >> wrote: >> Dear Olivier, >> Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the >> current IGF OC: >> Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and video/ >> audio: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >> Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php >> Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, >> twitter and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ >> Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY >> Let me know if i can help you in any other way... >> All the best, >> >> Bernard >> -- >> Bernard SADAKA >> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >> Lebanon >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > > wrote: >> Hello Bernard, >> >> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation >> set-up. This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a >> provocative remark to get some people to open their eyes, rather >> than bathing each other in congratulatory, back-patting, empty >> speech. >> >> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed >> to work. >> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere >> along the line... >> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to >> work perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote >> participation at this meeting = nil. >> >> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. >> ie. non existent. >> >> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of >> remote participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people >> connect simultaneously... >> >> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi- >> stakeholder public participation, why is this subject not being >> dealt with in a professional way? >> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It >> makes the whole IGF process a complete joke. >> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >> >> Olivier >> >> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >>> >>> Thx Sivasubramanian, >>> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't >>> have webcast though here :) ) >>> All the Best. >>> Bernard. >>> -- >>> Bernard SADAKA >>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>> Lebanon >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > wrote: >>> Hello >>> >>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make >>> it easy to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>> >>> >>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>> Time: 09:30 CET >>> >>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>> >>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>> >>> No passwords necessary. >>> >>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 05:55:09 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:55:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: <38FE63EE-D385-4419-94B5-6854B129C8A8@christopherwilkinson.eu> References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> <4B716DEF.9070103@paque.net> <38FE63EE-D385-4419-94B5-6854B129C8A8@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: I think no one noticed that we had a badly worded subject line - I only saw it this morning after I read your message. The remote participation was yesterday for the Open Consultation. It was far from perfect but it was available (mostly - the morning was better) - and I must say that the captioning was posted very quickly afterwards so that one could fill in the gaps. Deirdre On 10 February 2010 06:40, CW Mail wrote: > Well, that does not work. There is no video atall. The video link leads to > an advertisement from VideoLAN. The VCL mediaplayer download offered does > not improve matters. > The Chat is Read Only. > > Who is ? > > How did Chennai post their interesting question? I notice that nobody else > has found out how to enter meaningful text into the Chat. > > Regards, CW > > > > On 09 Feb 2010, at 15:18, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Ginger, > > These comments are comments are not posted for discussion in today's > meetings. Think of this discussion as a sideline discussion during the > review process, to take further shape as a concrete proposal. Yes, we will > send this to the Secretariat as a suggestion. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > >> Good point, Shiva, and one many have made at the OC this morning. We are >> now past the time for this agenda point, and are moving on to agenda. We are >> not looking for a solution for today, but for participation in a process. I >> suggest that you send this comment directly to the IGF secretariat, and I >> know the RPWG will take it under consideration. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Hello Ginger >> >> Oliver and I had a chat on this topic and I have had some exchanges on >> twitter with Marilla. >> >> Our concern is not to find a temporary solution to participate in the >> meeting today, it is a general concern, it is about the technical resources >> required for remote participation, by IGF standards >> >> IGF is *THE* Internet forum, a place where the who is who of Internet >> and all the technical expertise converges and the infrastructure available >> must be uncompromising. The present standards are a generation behind, there >> is no room for contention. >> >> It is all run by volunteers, yes, but this is not a comment about >> people, it is a comment about the resources to be committed, about the >> attention that needs to be paid. IGF needs to consult professionals months >> in advance to determine the bandwidth and infrastructure requirements, >> arrange to send experts to the locations days in advance to flawlessly set >> up the remote participation infrastructure. >> >> My suggestion here is that administratively the IGF Secretariat could >> call for advise from the technical community >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> http://www.isocmadras.com >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >> >>> Dear Olivier, >>> Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF >>> OC: >>> >>> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and >>> video/audio: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio only: >>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php >>> - Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, >>> twitter and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ >>> - Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY >>> >>> Let me know if i can help you in any other way... >>> All the best, >>> >>> Bernard >>> -- >>> Bernard SADAKA >>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>> Lebanon >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hello Bernard, >>>> >>>> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >>>> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. >>>> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get >>>> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in >>>> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. >>>> >>>> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to >>>> work. >>>> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >>>> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along >>>> the line... >>>> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work >>>> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this >>>> meeting = nil. >>>> >>>> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. non >>>> existent. >>>> >>>> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote >>>> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect >>>> simultaneously... >>>> >>>> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder >>>> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a >>>> professional way? >>>> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes >>>> the whole IGF process a complete joke. >>>> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >>>> >>>> Olivier >>>> >>>> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >>>> >>>> Thx Sivasubramanian, >>>> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>>> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have >>>> webcast though here :) ) >>>> All the Best. >>>> Bernard. >>>> -- >>>> Bernard SADAKA >>>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>>> Lebanon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>>> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello >>>>> >>>>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it >>>>> easy to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>>>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>>>> Time: 09:30 CET >>>>> >>>>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>>>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>>>> >>>>> No passwords necessary. >>>>> >>>>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>>>> >>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pbekono at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 06:41:45 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:41:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until In-Reply-To: <609019df1002071811v40774e8k9d5e8cb67f949043@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> <20100207122259.9974B91A32@npogroups.org> <609019df1002071811v40774e8k9d5e8cb67f949043@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f151491002100341p2af8775et65be5235dfa7b246@mail.gmail.com> Yes Yes Yes Pascal 2010/2/8 Qusai AlShatti > Yes to all. > > Qusai Al-Shatti > > On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > > If this is for all in the list, my consent is YES to all. > > > > Best regards, > > Hakikur Rahman > > > > At 12:14 07-02-2010, Parminder wrote: > > > > Yes to all... > > > > Ginger Paque wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > I apologize for being out of contact, as I have had a combination of > > electrical and Internet cuts, travel and all day meetings. I am now in > > Geneva, and attending your concerns about our statement for the OC on > > Tuesday. > > > > With Jeremy's pre-authorized consent, as he is out of contact, I am now > > making a call for consensus until 10 p.m. GMT Monday, Feb. 8th. This > should > > allow us to make a final decision at the in situ meeting here in Geneva > > Monday evening. I will have my computer with me and connected (unless we > > have some unavoidable problem), so you can email or skype during the > > meeting, and we will try to reach a consensus with as many voices as > > possible. My skype login is gingerpaque. > > > > I propose that we find consensus on three short statements that can be > read > > together or separately, as appropriate--not necessarily in the order > shown. > > The final suggested closing is an iteration of Parminder's recent > > suggestion. > > > > An all agreement vote would read: > > 1: Yes > > 2: Yes > > 3: Yes > > > > Conversely, one could opine with all "No" or a combination of opinions. > > > > 1. > > Network neutrality has been an important architectural principle for > > the Internet. This principle is under considerable challenge as the > > Internet becomes the mainstream communication platform for almost all > > business and social activities. The IGC proposes a main session with the > > focus of Network Neutrality - Ensuring Openness in All Layers of the > > Internet. This main session should examine the implications of this > > principle, and its possible evolutionary interpretations for Internet > policy > > in different areas. Issues about the openness of the Internet > architecture > > are increasingly manifest in all layers of the Internet today. > > > > 2. > > A Development Agenda for Internet Governance Development is a key focus > of > > the Tunis Agenda and its mandate for the IGF. But while development has > been > > posed as a cross-cutting theme of IGF meetings, they have not featured a > > broadly inclusive and probing dialogue on what Internet Governance for > > Development (IG4D) might mean in conceptual and operational terms. To > > address this gap, the IGC previously has advocated a main session on A > > Development Agenda for Internet Governance, and some its members have > > organized workshops or produced position papers elaborating different > > visions of what such an agenda could entail. In light of the related > > discussions during the Sharm el Sheikh cycle, we renew our call for a > main > > session on this theme. The dialogue at Vilnius could, inter alia, > identify > > the linkages between Internet governance mechanisms and development, and > > consider options for mainstreaming development considerations into IGF > > discussions and Internet governance processes, as appropriate. We also > > continue to support the Swiss government's proposal to consider > establishing > > a multi-stakeholder Working Group that could develop recommendations to > the > > IGF on a development agenda. > > > > 3. > > Internet governance has up to this time largely been founded in technical > > principles and, increasingly, on the Internet’s functionality as a giant > > global marketplace. With the Internet becoming increasingly central to > many > > social and political institutions, we are of the view that a > consideration > > of 'internet rights and principles' can provide the basis for a more > > comprehensive conceptual framework for IG. > > > > > > In Sharm El Sheikh, specific 3-hour workshops on the two themes of a > > development agenda and Net Neutrality were organized, which represents a > > certain degree of maturity of these themes within the IGF context. These > > successful and productive sessions should be build upon in 2010. > > > > The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles has done dynamic > and > > productive work on the issue of IRP, highlighting the concept of Dynamic > > Coalitions and laying the groundwork to address this issue as part of the > > Vilnius agenda. > > Thank you very much. > > Best, > > Ginger > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 06:48:00 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 07:18:00 -0430 Subject: [governance] Call for consensus on IGC OC statement until In-Reply-To: <80f151491002100341p2af8775et65be5235dfa7b246@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B6EA6A1.6010909@gmail.com> <4B6EAE98.8010500@itforchange.net> <20100207122259.9974B91A32@npogroups.org> <609019df1002071811v40774e8k9d5e8cb67f949043@mail.gmail.com> <80f151491002100341p2af8775et65be5235dfa7b246@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B729CF0.1010807@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Wed Feb 10 06:57:10 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:57:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B729F16.6030804@gih.com> Hello Marilia, thank you for your kind reply to my rant. I'll address some of the points your raise inline: Le 09/02/2010 14:01, Marilia Maciel a écrit : > > So far, everybody seemed to be very comfortable that a bunch of crazy > people volunteered and gave up their time to push remote participation > forward. Not we are starting to recognize the obvious. This is a > huge structure that cannot put in place properly without consistent > community involvement and professional dedication. > I am unsure that everyone of comfortable about a "bunch of crazy people" volunteering... and not for the reasons you might think. I have been feeling uneasy about the fact that perhaps one of the most pioneering and strategic processes relating to the long term future of the planet is making use of so many volunteers who are, in my view, being exploited shamelessly to produce something out of nothing. I have recurring visions of "The A-Team" - an 80s TV series where a team of highly gifted, if not eccentric individuals, managed to get out of the most dangerous situations by building an aircraft out of two tin cans and piece of string. Agreeing with you, I would like to append the following statement to your last sentence: "...and cannot function without a substantial dedicated budget which will need to be allocated by the IGF secretariat, and unltimately, by the IGF funding bodies. This budget should serve to: 1. appoint a full time staff member whose responsibility will be to source and set-up remote participation tools for every IGF meeting 2. appoint a team of paid experts who will support the full time staff into achieving this goal in a timely and satisfactory manner 3. fund a permanent historical online repository of all meeting recordings, whether video, voice, data, etc. This repository should be intuitive in its navigation and be professionally designed and implemented, with a permanent contract to keep it up to date > We should always bear in mind, nevertheless, that we can look to > remote participation from two different perspectives: > > 1- Of what has been accomplished. If you look back, you will remember > that we departed from a single pre-moderated chat for RP, and now we > have a multitude of channels (main platform during IGF meetings, Cover > It Live, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube channels), with the comments and > questions being displayed in the large screen in the meetings, for > everybody to see. This is a considerable enhancement in terms of > transparency, specially if you consider that we are in a UN environment. > Yes, I am happy to see that there has been a lot of progress. But since "we are in a UN environment", let's professionalise this in order to introduce some accountability to remote participation. For example, the Webcasts at IGF Sharm el Sheikh and carried on the UN site were great. Why was this set-up not pursued in the Open Consultations yesterday? Rather than having multiple informal but unreliable channels for remote participation, there should be one reliable, tried and tested, channel which is an *inherent* part of the organisation of the session rather than a side process which has been hooked on to the main process. > In 2008 people reported problems with webcast transmission during the > IGF, which hampered proper participation. In 2009, the quality of the > webcast has improved (according to all remote participants that > provided us feedback). In 2010 we are talking about improving quality > of interaction. This shows that we are not stuck, we are moving > forward. There has been constant improvement from year to year and > that should be acknowledged. > Yes, I acknowledge that - but I am also saying that whilst the IGF remote volunteer team should be congratulated for all of the progress done so far, the IGF Secretariat should not pat itself on the back that the current arrangements are satisfactory and that there is therefore no need to throw some serious money at this, if it can work on a shoestring budget (read: no budget). IMHO, what's around here today is *not* satisfactory. It will *not* serve to bring any fresh blood in the Internet Governance arena. It will *not* help geographical diversity because it will does not work well at all for some parts of the world. > 2- On what still needs to be accomplished (considering the scarce > resources of the IGF, but considering also the potential of the IG > community) > > - More multistakeholder involvement, especially from the technical > community and the MAG > > - Earlier planning, with the involvement of professionals, host, > Secretariat and a group of interested people > > - Trained remote moderators, assigned at least one month before the > event. > > - Remote participation has to be taken into account by workshop > organizers in the planning of the dynamics of their workshop. Wks > organizers and moderators are responsible for bringing in the > questions from remote participants, helping to improve the quality of > interaction. > Yes, yes, yes, and yes! But I don't think it is fair for volunteers to take on that task and complete it by themselves. I think it has the dangerous potential to put volunteers into "burn-out" mode because it is way more challenging a task than it appears initially. > If anybody has suggestions on how to improve remote participation, > please get in touch with the Remote Participation Working Group and > the IGF Secretariat. Speaking for the group, we are more then happy to > exchange ideas and receive suggestions from the experienced members of > this community. > > I am looking forward to continuing this discussion. This is the first > step to make e-participation a policy theme in the IGF, as we > suggested in our statement to the open consultations. > Thomas Narten has written an Internet Draft relating to public participation at IETF meetings, and this was presented to the IETF VMEET discussion list. His draft on remote participation raises very interesting, well thought out and structured questions and points, which I think that the IGF Remote Participation Working Group would benefit from. Seeing that the version I have found archived on the Web is out of date, I've emailed him separately and will revert to you and to this list if I find out where the latest version of his draft is stored. I hope this helps. Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 07:11:43 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:41:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> <4B716DEF.9070103@paque.net> <38FE63EE-D385-4419-94B5-6854B129C8A8@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: The MAG meeting is in progress today and will continue tomorrow, but MAG meetings are closed. Yesterday's Open consultation meeting can be replayed from page http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > I think no one noticed that we had a badly worded subject line - I only saw > it this morning after I read your message. The remote participation was > yesterday for the Open Consultation. It was far from perfect but it was > available (mostly - the morning was better) - and I must say that the > captioning was posted very quickly afterwards so that one could fill in the > gaps. > Deirdre > > > On 10 February 2010 06:40, CW Mail wrote: > >> Well, that does not work. There is no video atall. The video link leads to >> an advertisement from VideoLAN. The VCL mediaplayer download offered does >> not improve matters. >> The Chat is Read Only. >> >> Who is ? >> >> How did Chennai post their interesting question? I notice that nobody else >> has found out how to enter meaningful text into the Chat. >> >> Regards, CW >> >> >> >> On 09 Feb 2010, at 15:18, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> Ginger, >> >> These comments are comments are not posted for discussion in today's >> meetings. Think of this discussion as a sideline discussion during the >> review process, to take further shape as a concrete proposal. Yes, we will >> send this to the Secretariat as a suggestion. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> http://www.isocmadras.com >> >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> >>> Good point, Shiva, and one many have made at the OC this morning. We >>> are now past the time for this agenda point, and are moving on to agenda. We >>> are not looking for a solution for today, but for participation in a >>> process. I suggest that you send this comment directly to the IGF >>> secretariat, and I know the RPWG will take it under consideration. >>> >>> Best, >>> Ginger >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Hello Ginger >>> >>> Oliver and I had a chat on this topic and I have had some exchanges on >>> twitter with Marilla. >>> >>> Our concern is not to find a temporary solution to participate in the >>> meeting today, it is a general concern, it is about the technical resources >>> required for remote participation, by IGF standards >>> >>> IGF is *THE* Internet forum, a place where the who is who of Internet >>> and all the technical expertise converges and the infrastructure available >>> must be uncompromising. The present standards are a generation behind, there >>> is no room for contention. >>> >>> It is all run by volunteers, yes, but this is not a comment about >>> people, it is a comment about the resources to be committed, about the >>> attention that needs to be paid. IGF needs to consult professionals months >>> in advance to determine the bandwidth and infrastructure requirements, >>> arrange to send experts to the locations days in advance to flawlessly set >>> up the remote participation infrastructure. >>> >>> My suggestion here is that administratively the IGF Secretariat could >>> call for advise from the technical community >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >>> >>>> Dear Olivier, >>>> Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current IGF >>>> OC: >>>> >>>> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and >>>> video/audio: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>>> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio >>>> only: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php >>>> - Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, >>>> twitter and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ >>>> - Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY >>>> >>>> Let me know if i can help you in any other way... >>>> All the best, >>>> >>>> Bernard >>>> -- >>>> Bernard SADAKA >>>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>>> Lebanon >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond < >>>> ocl at gih.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello Bernard, >>>>> >>>>> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >>>>> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. >>>>> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get >>>>> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in >>>>> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. >>>>> >>>>> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to >>>>> work. >>>>> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >>>>> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along >>>>> the line... >>>>> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work >>>>> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this >>>>> meeting = nil. >>>>> >>>>> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. >>>>> non existent. >>>>> >>>>> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote >>>>> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect >>>>> simultaneously... >>>>> >>>>> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder >>>>> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a >>>>> professional way? >>>>> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It makes >>>>> the whole IGF process a complete joke. >>>>> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >>>>> >>>>> Olivier >>>>> >>>>> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> Thx Sivasubramanian, >>>>> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>>>> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have >>>>> webcast though here :) ) >>>>> All the Best. >>>>> Bernard. >>>>> -- >>>>> Bernard SADAKA >>>>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>>>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>>>> Lebanon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>>>> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello >>>>>> >>>>>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it >>>>>> easy to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>>>>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>>>>> Time: 09:30 CET >>>>>> >>>>>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>>>>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>>>>> >>>>>> No passwords necessary. >>>>>> >>>>>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>>>>> >>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 07:38:09 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:08:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Re: Remote Participation Instructions for the MAG In-Reply-To: References: <43c2faf81002081300q49bb57f6ha769092b64ff268d@mail.gmail.com> <4B714516.5090507@gih.com> <43c2faf81002090329u51823c95ve0224a90b787d831@mail.gmail.com> <4B716DEF.9070103@paque.net> <38FE63EE-D385-4419-94B5-6854B129C8A8@christopherwilkinson.eu> Message-ID: The video recordings are at page http://media.lscube.org/IGF/2010/Feb_09 The Remote Participation Chat record is at page http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e Complete text of the Open Consultations is at page http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/2010/transcripts/IGF.9.Feb.09.openconsultations.txt Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: > The MAG meeting is in progress today and will continue tomorrow, but MAG > meetings are closed. > > Yesterday's Open consultation meeting can be replayed from page > http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Deirdre Williams < > williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think no one noticed that we had a badly worded subject line - I only >> saw it this morning after I read your message. The remote participation was >> yesterday for the Open Consultation. It was far from perfect but it was >> available (mostly - the morning was better) - and I must say that the >> captioning was posted very quickly afterwards so that one could fill in the >> gaps. >> Deirdre >> >> >> On 10 February 2010 06:40, CW Mail wrote: >> >>> Well, that does not work. There is no video atall. The video link leads >>> to an advertisement from VideoLAN. The VCL mediaplayer download offered does >>> not improve matters. >>> The Chat is Read Only. >>> >>> Who is ? >>> >>> How did Chennai post their interesting question? I notice that nobody >>> else has found out how to enter meaningful text into the Chat. >>> >>> Regards, CW >>> >>> >>> >>> On 09 Feb 2010, at 15:18, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> Ginger, >>> >>> These comments are comments are not posted for discussion in today's >>> meetings. Think of this discussion as a sideline discussion during the >>> review process, to take further shape as a concrete proposal. Yes, we will >>> send this to the Secretariat as a suggestion. >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >>> >>>> Good point, Shiva, and one many have made at the OC this morning. We >>>> are now past the time for this agenda point, and are moving on to agenda. We >>>> are not looking for a solution for today, but for participation in a >>>> process. I suggest that you send this comment directly to the IGF >>>> secretariat, and I know the RPWG will take it under consideration. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Ginger >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello Ginger >>>> >>>> Oliver and I had a chat on this topic and I have had some exchanges on >>>> twitter with Marilla. >>>> >>>> Our concern is not to find a temporary solution to participate in the >>>> meeting today, it is a general concern, it is about the technical resources >>>> required for remote participation, by IGF standards >>>> >>>> IGF is *THE* Internet forum, a place where the who is who of Internet >>>> and all the technical expertise converges and the infrastructure available >>>> must be uncompromising. The present standards are a generation behind, there >>>> is no room for contention. >>>> >>>> It is all run by volunteers, yes, but this is not a comment about >>>> people, it is a comment about the resources to be committed, about the >>>> attention that needs to be paid. IGF needs to consult professionals months >>>> in advance to determine the bandwidth and infrastructure requirements, >>>> arrange to send experts to the locations days in advance to flawlessly set >>>> up the remote participation infrastructure. >>>> >>>> My suggestion here is that administratively the IGF Secretariat could >>>> call for advise from the technical community >>>> >>>> >>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Bernard Sadaka wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear Olivier, >>>>> Please find bellow all the ways you could participate in the current >>>>> IGF OC: >>>>> >>>>> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and >>>>> video/audio: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>>>> - Remote participation including coveritlive, twitter and audio >>>>> only: http://www.igfremote.info/RP/audioonly.php >>>>> - Remote participation from your mobile including coveritlive, >>>>> twitter and no audio or video: http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ >>>>> - Remote participation via Webex: http://bit.ly/bvJQSY >>>>> >>>>> Let me know if i can help you in any other way... >>>>> All the best, >>>>> >>>>> Bernard >>>>> -- >>>>> Bernard SADAKA >>>>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>>>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>>>> Lebanon >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 1:20 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond < >>>>> ocl at gih.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello Bernard, >>>>>> >>>>>> thank you, and thanks to all of the others (Patrik Fältström, for >>>>>> example), who have tried to have some kind of remote participation set-up. >>>>>> This is not meant as a criticism of anyone, just a provocative remark to get >>>>>> some people to open their eyes, rather than bathing each other in >>>>>> congratulatory, back-patting, empty speech. >>>>>> >>>>>> The trouble is that I've never managed to get the video/audio feed to >>>>>> work. >>>>>> For one, they don't work with Firefox. >>>>>> And then it appears that there's not enough bandwidth somewhere along >>>>>> the line... >>>>>> I can get Webex, Skype, Marratech, Adobe Meeting, and Jabber to work >>>>>> perfectly, even with 2-way video, and yet, remote participation at this >>>>>> meeting = nil. >>>>>> >>>>>> Whatever, remote participation, for me, currently rates at 0/10. ie. >>>>>> non existent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Any remote participation system should be designed for 100s of remote >>>>>> participants, and should not fail when more than 10 people connect >>>>>> simultaneously... >>>>>> >>>>>> My question: with the whole point of the IGF being multi-stakeholder >>>>>> public participation, why is this subject not being dealt with in a >>>>>> professional way? >>>>>> The current arrangement is very poor. Sorry, I mean: dreadful. It >>>>>> makes the whole IGF process a complete joke. >>>>>> Perhaps Dr. Touré was right when he used the term "waste of time". >>>>>> >>>>>> Olivier >>>>>> >>>>>> Le 08/02/2010 22:00, Bernard Sadaka a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>> Thx Sivasubramanian, >>>>>> You could also use http://www.igfremote.info/RP/ >>>>>> or http://www.igfremote.info/mRP/ from a mobile phone (you won't have >>>>>> webcast though here :) ) >>>>>> All the Best. >>>>>> Bernard. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Bernard SADAKA >>>>>> Mobile: +961 3 172377 >>>>>> Email : sdkaaa at gmail.com >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> BsE in Computer and Communication Engineer >>>>>> Lebanon >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>>>>> isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bernard sdkaaa of Lebanon has gathered this info that would make it >>>>>>> easy to participate remotely in the meeting tomorrow: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Live Blog: IGF February 2010 Open Consultations >>>>>>> Date: Tuesday February 9, 2010 >>>>>>> Time: 09:30 CET >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In order to view the event, simply click here. Or alternatively, >>>>>>> copy-paste this link in your browser: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.igfremote.info/RP/?altcast_code=e02867f44e >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No passwords necessary. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Questions to sharmstocktaking at intgovforum.org >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>>>>>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>>> >>>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>>> >>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William >> Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Feb 10 07:57:35 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 04:57:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] A 50-Watt Cellular Network Message-ID: A 50-Watt Cellular Network Solar-powered base stations can link up remote rural areas. By David Talbot | Wednesday, February 10, 2010 Art. Ref.: http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=24511&channel=communications§ion=# Print: http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=24511&channel=communications§ion=# - An Indian telecom company is deploying simple cell phone base stations that need as little as 50 watts of solar-provided power. It will soon announce plans to sell the equipment in Africa, expanding cell phone access to new ranks of rural villagers who live far from electricity supplies. Over the past year, VNL, based in Haryana, India, has reengineered traditional cellular base stations to create one that only requires between 50 and 120 watts of power, supplied by a solar-charged battery. The components can be assembled and booted up by two people and mounted on a rooftop in six hours. One such station--dubbed a "village station"--can handle hundreds of users. Groups of such village stations feed signals to a required larger VNL base station within five kilometers. In turn that larger station, which is also solar-powered, relays signals to the main network. The village station can turn a profit even if customers spend on average only $2 a month on the service, instead of the $6 required to make traditional systems cost-effective, the company says. "We've scaled down the cost, the energy, and the equipment so that almost anybody can deploy it," says Rajiv Mehrotra, VNL's CEO. "It lends itself to many business models that can serve the bottom of the pyramid," a reference to the roughly 1.5 billion rural people who do not have access to electricity grids around the world. To date, some 50 VNL base stations have been installed in the Indian state of Rajasthan, introducing thousands of people to cell phone service for the first time. An African rollout is imminent, the company says, without elaborating. The initial batch of 50 stations supports only voice calls, not text or data, a decision mainly based on the fact that many of the new users may not be able to read or write. Besides enabling basic communication, cell phones can provide enormous financial opportunities for rural people, especially if those people adopt services that provide banking and lending via cell phone. More than half of India's 1.1 billion people lack any access to basic financial services, and instead pay usurious rates to local loan sharks. Furthermore, while microlending can lift people from poverty, only about 150 million people worldwide use such services. Expanded cell networks, together with banking programs geared to the rural poor, could change all of that. The base station rollouts are "incredibly empowering for the world's remote and low-income masses," says Valerie Rozycki, head of strategic initiatives at mChek, a mobile-payment platform based in Bangalore that is unconnected with VNL. Expanding cell networks in many rural areas comes down to the availability of sufficient electricity to power base stations. Existing off-the-grid base stations in India require expensive diesel generators. "The cost is substantial enough to make many rural markets unprofitable and therefore unwired," says Ethan Zuckerman, cofounder of Global Voices, an aggregator and promoter of blogging worldwide. "Solutions that reduce the cost of building a base station are helpful, and those that reduce the costs of powering a base station are crucial." Russell Southwood, CEO of Balancing Act, a London-based telecom and Internet consultancy focused on Africa, says low-energy, self-sufficient solutions will be key to expanding cellular access further in the developing world. "Energy costs are particularly high, as [base-station] sites often have two generators and some have three months' supply of fuel," he says. "Anything that cuts fuel costs is bound to be attractive to operators, and it's also a more sustainable, green approach to communications." But while VNL has optimized its unit for rural areas, it is not the only company making low-cost, low-power base stations. "We are seeing a trend toward commoditization" in the cellular industry, says Ray Raychaudhuri, director of WinLab, a wireless research laboratory at Rutgers University. "Where it was traditionally vertically integrated, you are seeing that break down into something that looks more like a Wi-Fi architecture, where you can buy a box and install it." Article Links: Rajiv Mehrotra, CEO, Haryana, India http://www.vnl.in/ Valerie Rozycki, mChek http://main.mchek.com/ Ethan Zuckerman, cofounder of Global Voices http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/ Russell Southwood, CEO of Balancing Act: http://www.balancingact-africa.com/about.html Ray Raychaudhuri, director of WinLab http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/ Copyright Technology Review 2010. --- -30- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 08:24:57 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:24:57 +0300 Subject: [governance] A 50-Watt Cellular Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Compare this with the village telco model (www.villagetelco.org), where profits are kept in rural and informal settlements instead of all going to a telco. Mesh potato beta unit draws 2.47 Watts at 12.3 Volts with radio on, phone on hook, Ethernet and Batman running (3 nodes), ssh remote shell connected via wireless. When the phone is off hook the power consumption increases to 3.26 Watts. Running gear on sunshine is nothing new either, but this may be the 1st crack at mass production of fully contained solar systems. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > A 50-Watt Cellular Network > Solar-powered base stations can link up remote rural areas. > By David Talbot | Wednesday, February 10, 2010 > > Art. Ref.: > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=24511&channel=communications§ion=# > > Print: > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=24511&channel=communications§ion=# > - > > An Indian telecom company is deploying simple cell phone base stations that > need as little as 50 watts of solar-provided power. It will soon announce plans > to sell the equipment in Africa, expanding cell phone access to new ranks of > rural villagers who live far from electricity supplies. > > Over the past year, VNL, based in Haryana, India, has reengineered traditional > cellular base stations to create one that only requires between 50 and 120 > watts of power, supplied by a solar-charged battery. The components can be > assembled and booted up by two people and mounted on a rooftop in six hours. > > One such station--dubbed a "village station"--can handle hundreds of users. > Groups of such village stations feed signals to a required larger VNL base > station within five kilometers. In turn that larger station, which is also > solar-powered, relays signals to the main network. The village station can turn > a profit even if customers spend on average only $2 a month on the service, > instead of the $6 required to make traditional systems cost-effective, the > company says. > > "We've scaled down the cost, the energy, and the equipment so that almost > anybody can deploy it," says Rajiv Mehrotra, VNL's CEO. "It lends itself to > many business models that can serve the bottom of the pyramid," a reference to > the roughly 1.5 billion rural people who do not have access to electricity > grids around the world. > > To date, some 50 VNL base stations have been installed in the Indian state of > Rajasthan, introducing thousands of people to cell phone service for the first > time. An African rollout is imminent, the company says, without elaborating. > The initial batch of 50 stations supports only voice calls, not text or data, a > decision mainly based on the fact that many of the new users may not be able to > read or write. > > Besides enabling basic communication, cell phones can provide enormous > financial opportunities for rural people, especially if those people adopt > services that provide banking and lending via cell phone. More than half of > India's 1.1 billion people lack any access to basic financial services, and > instead pay usurious rates to local loan sharks. Furthermore, while > microlending can lift people from poverty, only about 150 million people > worldwide use such services. Expanded cell networks, together with banking > programs geared to the rural poor, could change all of that. > > The base station rollouts are "incredibly empowering for the world's remote and > low-income masses," says Valerie Rozycki, head of strategic initiatives at > mChek, a mobile-payment platform based in Bangalore that is unconnected with > VNL. > > Expanding cell networks in many rural areas comes down to the availability of > sufficient electricity to power base stations. Existing off-the-grid base > stations in India require expensive diesel generators. "The cost is substantial > enough to make many rural markets unprofitable and therefore unwired," says > Ethan Zuckerman, cofounder of Global Voices, an aggregator and promoter of > blogging worldwide. "Solutions that reduce the cost of building a base station > are helpful, and those that reduce the costs of powering a base station are > crucial." > > Russell Southwood, CEO of Balancing Act, a London-based telecom and Internet > consultancy focused on Africa, says low-energy, self-sufficient solutions will > be key to expanding cellular access further in the developing world. "Energy > costs are particularly high, as [base-station] sites often have two generators > and some have three months' supply of fuel," he says. "Anything that cuts fuel > costs is bound to be attractive to operators, and it's also a more sustainable, > green approach to communications." > > But while VNL has optimized its unit for rural areas, it is not the only > company making low-cost, low-power base stations. "We are seeing a trend toward > commoditization" in the cellular industry, says Ray Raychaudhuri, director of > WinLab, a wireless research laboratory at Rutgers University. "Where it was > traditionally vertically integrated, you are seeing that break down into > something that looks more like a Wi-Fi architecture, where you can buy a box > and install it." > > > Article Links: > > Rajiv Mehrotra, CEO, Haryana, India > http://www.vnl.in/ > > Valerie Rozycki, mChek > http://main.mchek.com/ > > Ethan Zuckerman, cofounder of Global Voices > http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/ > > Russell Southwood, CEO of Balancing Act: > http://www.balancingact-africa.com/about.html > > Ray Raychaudhuri, director of WinLab > http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/ > > > Copyright Technology Review 2010. > > --- > > -30- > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 10 09:34:23 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:04:23 -0430 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition (launch) Message-ID: <4B72C3EF.2040609@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gate.one205 at yahoo.fr Wed Feb 10 09:39:29 2010 From: gate.one205 at yahoo.fr (Jean-Yves GATETE) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:39:29 +0000 (GMT) Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9f.:_[governance]?= Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition (launch) Message-ID: <161606.17838.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> well done ! congratulations once again, regards , Gatete Le mer. 10 févr 2010 15:34 CET, Ginger Paque a écrit : >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fulvio.frati at unimi.it Wed Feb 10 09:43:17 2010 From: fulvio.frati at unimi.it (Fulvio Frati) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:43:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Call for Papers: International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering (IJITWE) Message-ID: [Apologies if you receive multiple copies of this message] Call for Papers International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering (IJITWE) http://www.igi-global.com/journals/details.asp?ID=4768 Mission of IJITWE: The main objective of the International Journal of Information Technology and Web Engineering (IJITWE) is to publish refereed papers in the area covering information technology (IT) concepts, tools, methodologies, and ethnography in the contexts of global communication systems and Web engineered applications. In accordance with this emphasis on the Web and communication systems, this journal publishes papers on IT research and practice that support seamless end-to-end information and knowledge flow among individuals, teams, and organizations. This end-to-end strategy for research and practice requires emphasis on integrated research among the various steps involved in data/knowledge (structured and unstructured) capture (manual or automated), classification and clustering, storage, analysis, synthesis, dissemination, display, consumption, and feedback. The secondary objective is to assist in the evolving and maturing of IT-dependent organizations, as well as individuals, in information and knowledge based culture and commerce, including e-commerce. Coverage of IJITWE: - Case studies validating Web-based IT solutions - Competitive/intelligent information systems - Data analytics for business and government organizations - Data and knowledge capture and quality issues - Data and knowledge validation and verification - Human factors and cultural impact of IT-based systems - Information filtering and display adaptation techniques for wireless devices - Integrated heterogeneous and homogeneous workflows and databases within and across organizations, suppliers, and customers - Integrated user profile, provisioning, and context-based processing - IT education and training - IT readiness and technology transfer studies - Knowledge structure, classification, and search algorithms or engines - Metrics-based performance measurement of IT-based and Web-based organizations - Mobile, location-aware, and ubiquitous computing - Ontology and Semantic Web studies - Quality of service and service level agreement issues among integrated systems - Radio frequency identification (RFID) research and applications in Web engineered systems - Security, integrity, privacy, and policy issues - Software agent-based applications - Strategies for linking business needs and IT - Virtual teams and virtual enterprises: communication, policies, operation, creativity, and innovation - Web systems architectures, including distributed, grid computers, and communication systems processing - Web systems engineering design - Web systems performance engineering studies - Web user interfaces design, development, and usability engineering studies Interested authors should consult the journal's manuscript submission guidelines at www.igi-global.com/ijitwe. All inquiries and submissions should be sent to: Editors-in-Chief: Ghazi I. Alkhatib at alkhatib at psut.edu.jo and alkhatib at orange.jo and Ernesto Damiani at ernesto.damiani at unimi.it ____________________________________ SESAR Lab - Dipartimento Tecnologie dell'Informazione Università degli Studi di Milano 26013 Crema (CR) - ITALY Phone +39 0373 898048 Fax +39 0373 898010 ____________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 10:06:13 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 10:36:13 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGC statement to the Feb. 09 Geneva IGF Open Consultations Message-ID: <4B72CB65.6040906@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 10:22:58 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:22:58 +0500 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: <4B72C3EF.2040609@gmail.com> References: <4B72C3EF.2040609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <701af9f71002100722q47655961qbc6d42b817f65eb@mail.gmail.com> Congrats guys!!!! The announcement was also shared and stressed today and it was emphasized to engage this new coalition in mainstream activities of the IGF!!!! Good go everyone!!!! On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi everybody, > > The launch of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Youth was announced yesterday at > the Open Consultation meeting. I congratulate you all on a dynamic start, > and hope you will keep your energy and perseverance going towards productive > involvement in the IG process. Rafik or others, can you post an update here? > > We saw yesterday the importance of reporting back by the Dynamic Coalitions. > The OCs, IGF Secretariat and other stakeholders need to stay informed of > activities and participation by the DCs. The OC and MAG need to be reminded > of the activities and importance of the DCs, but the DCs must be active and > communicative for this to happen. We hope to hear from you in the near > future. > > Best, > Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 10 11:06:10 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (glaser at nic.br) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:06:10 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles Message-ID: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Principles for the Governance (2).jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 287666 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 11:09:53 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:09:53 +0500 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> Message-ID: <701af9f71002100809p59c1df88mdf0fba3799180981@mail.gmail.com> Thank you Glaser, I was looking for this just now :o) On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:06 PM, wrote: > > See the brazilian Internet Principles .... > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 10 11:15:13 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:15:13 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> Message-ID: <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. []s frats --c.a. ==== CGI.br Internet Steering Committee in Brazil Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet in Brazil CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P June 2009 http://www.cgi.br rev.June 25 2009 The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd ordinary meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of São Paulo, has approved the following Resolution: CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE INTERNET IN BRAZIL Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to approve the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, recognizing them as essential to the preservation of a fair and democratic society. 2. Democratic and collaborative governance Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors of society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a collective creation. 3. Universality Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. 4. Diversity Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or values. 5. Innovation Internet governance must promote the continuous development and widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access and use. 6. Network neutrality Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. 7. Network unaccountability All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the means of access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. 8. Functionality, security and stability Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are consistent with international standards and encourage the adoption of best practices. 9. Standardization and interoperability The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. 10. Legal and regulatory environments Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the Internet as a space for collaboration. ==== glaser at nic.br wrote: > > See the brazilian Internet Principles .... > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrespiazza at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 11:16:43 2010 From: andrespiazza at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piazza?=) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:16:43 -0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: <701af9f71002100722q47655961qbc6d42b817f65eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B72C3EF.2040609@gmail.com> <701af9f71002100722q47655961qbc6d42b817f65eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations guys! I made a spanish post in order to help getting people in my region.. :) 2010/2/10, Fouad Bajwa : > Congrats guys!!!! The announcement was also shared and stressed today > and it was emphasized to engage this new coalition in mainstream > activities of the IGF!!!! > > Good go everyone!!!! > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: >> Hi everybody, >> >> The launch of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Youth was announced yesterday >> at >> the Open Consultation meeting. I congratulate you all on a dynamic start, >> and hope you will keep your energy and perseverance going towards >> productive >> involvement in the IG process. Rafik or others, can you post an update >> here? >> >> We saw yesterday the importance of reporting back by the Dynamic >> Coalitions. >> The OCs, IGF Secretariat and other stakeholders need to stay informed of >> activities and participation by the DCs. The OC and MAG need to be >> reminded >> of the activities and importance of the DCs, but the DCs must be active >> and >> communicative for this to happen. We hope to hear from you in the near >> future. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- Enviado desde mi dispositivo móvil ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From qshatti at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 11:18:47 2010 From: qshatti at gmail.com (Qusai AlShatti) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:18:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <701af9f71002100809p59c1df88mdf0fba3799180981@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> <701af9f71002100809p59c1df88mdf0fba3799180981@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <609019df1002100818x1816e600w2f413251045f7b8b@mail.gmail.com> Thank you Glaser and Carlos. Regards, Qusai Al-Shatti On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Fouad Bajwa wrote: > Thank you Glaser, I was looking for this just now :o) > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:06 PM,   wrote: >> >> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 10 11:24:32 2010 From: mariliamaciel at gmail.com (Marilia Maciel) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:24:32 -0200 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: <161606.17838.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <161606.17838.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This was a very important step to mainstream young people´s voices in the IG process. Congratulations to Rafik and to all members of the DC! Marília On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jean-Yves GATETE wrote: > well done ! > congratulations once again, > > regards , > Gatete > > Le mer. 10 févr 2010 15:34 CET, Ginger Paque a écrit : > > >____________________________________________________________ > >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 of Technology and Society Getulio Vargas Foundation Rio de Janeiro - Brazil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Feb 10 11:25:02 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:25:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4B72DDDE.8050300@wzb.eu> Dear Carlos, just to remind you, Glaser's first name is Hartmut :-) Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. > > []s frats > > --c.a. > > ==== > > CGI.br > Internet Steering Committee in Brazil > > Principles for the Governance and Use > of the Internet in Brazil > > CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P > June 2009 > http://www.cgi.br > rev.June 25 2009 > > The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd ordinary > meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of São Paulo, > has approved the following Resolution: > > CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE > INTERNET IN BRAZIL > > Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and > decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to > approve the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: > > 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights > The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of > expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, > recognizing them as essential to the preservation of a fair and > democratic society. > > 2. Democratic and collaborative governance > Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and > democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors of > society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a > collective creation. > > 3. Universality > Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human > and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an > inclusive and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. > > 4. Diversity > Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression > must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or values. > > > 5. Innovation > Internet governance must promote the continuous development and > widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access and use. > > 6. Network neutrality > Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria > only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural > factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. > > 7. Network unaccountability > All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed > at those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the means > of access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of > freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. > > 8. Functionality, security and stability > Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively > preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are consistent > with international standards and encourage the adoption of best practices. > > 9. Standardization and interoperability > The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate > interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. > > 10. Legal and regulatory environments > Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the > Internet as a space for collaboration. > > ==== > > > glaser at nic.br wrote: >> >> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 10 11:30:01 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:30:01 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <4B72DDDE.8050300@wzb.eu> References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> <4B72DDDE.8050300@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B72DF09.3030708@cafonso.ca> I usually call him just Glas, or Herr Hart :) --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Dear Carlos, just to remind you, Glaser's first name is Hartmut :-) > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. >> >> []s frats >> >> --c.a. >> >> ==== >> >> CGI.br >> Internet Steering Committee in Brazil >> >> Principles for the Governance and Use >> of the Internet in Brazil >> >> CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P >> June 2009 >> http://www.cgi.br >> rev.June 25 2009 >> >> The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd >> ordinary meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of >> São Paulo, has approved the following Resolution: >> >> CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE >> INTERNET IN BRAZIL >> >> Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and >> decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to >> approve the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: >> >> 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights >> The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of >> expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, >> recognizing them as essential to the preservation of a fair and >> democratic society. >> >> 2. Democratic and collaborative governance >> Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral >> and democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors >> of society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a >> collective creation. >> >> 3. Universality >> Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human >> and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an >> inclusive and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. >> >> 4. Diversity >> Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression >> must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or values. >> >> >> 5. Innovation >> Internet governance must promote the continuous development and >> widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access and >> use. >> >> 6. Network neutrality >> Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical >> criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and >> cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential >> treatment. >> >> 7. Network unaccountability >> All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed >> at those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the >> means of access and transport, always upholding the fundamental >> principles of freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. >> >> 8. Functionality, security and stability >> Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively >> preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are >> consistent with international standards and encourage the adoption of >> best practices. >> >> 9. Standardization and interoperability >> The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate >> interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. >> >> 10. Legal and regulatory environments >> Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the >> Internet as a space for collaboration. >> >> ==== >> >> >> glaser at nic.br wrote: >>> >>> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 10 11:33:26 2010 From: glaser at nic.br (glaser at nic.br) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 14:33:26 -0200 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <4B72DDDE.8050300@wzb.eu> References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> <4B72DDDE.8050300@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <20100210143326.11604elbf0g44jk0@mail.nic.br> But, for sure I am also Hartmut Glaser ... ============================================ Quoting "Jeanette Hofmann" : > Dear Carlos, just to remind you, Glaser's first name is Hartmut :-) > > Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. >> >> []s frats >> >> --c.a. >> >> ==== >> >> CGI.br >> Internet Steering Committee in Brazil >> >> Principles for the Governance and Use >> of the Internet in Brazil >> >> CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P >> June 2009 >> http://www.cgi.br >> rev.June 25 2009 >> >> The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd >> ordinary meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of >> São Paulo, has approved the following Resolution: >> >> CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE >> INTERNET IN BRAZIL >> >> Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and >> decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides >> to approve the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: >> >> 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights >> The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom >> of expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, >> recognizing them as essential to the preservation of a fair and >> democratic society. >> >> 2. Democratic and collaborative governance >> Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, >> multilateral and democratic manner, with the participation of the >> various sectors of society, thereby preserving and encouraging its >> character as a collective creation. >> >> 3. Universality >> Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for >> human and social development, thereby contributing to the formation >> of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. >> >> 4. Diversity >> Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its >> expression must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, >> customs or values. >> >> >> 5. Innovation >> Internet governance must promote the continuous development and >> widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access >> and use. >> >> 6. Network neutrality >> Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical >> criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and >> cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or >> preferential treatment. >> >> 7. Network unaccountability >> All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be >> aimed at those directly responsible for such activities, and not at >> the means of access and transport, always upholding the fundamental >> principles of freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. >> >> 8. Functionality, security and stability >> Network stability, security and overall functionality must be >> actively preserved through the adoption of technical measures that >> are consistent with international standards and encourage the >> adoption of best practices. >> >> 9. Standardization and interoperability >> The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate >> interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. >> >> 10. Legal and regulatory environments >> Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the >> Internet as a space for collaboration. >> >> ==== >> >> >> glaser at nic.br wrote: >>> >>> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Feb 10 11:35:50 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:35:50 +0000 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <4B72DF09.3030708@cafonso.ca> References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> <4B72DDDE.8050300@wzb.eu> <4B72DF09.3030708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4B72E066.40702@wzb.eu> I like that, could we declare this as a new standard that is open to further modification? jeanette Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > I usually call him just Glas, or Herr Hart :) > > --c.a. > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> Dear Carlos, just to remind you, Glaser's first name is Hartmut :-) >> >> Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >>> Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. >>> >>> []s frats >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> ==== >>> >>> CGI.br >>> Internet Steering Committee in Brazil >>> >>> Principles for the Governance and Use >>> of the Internet in Brazil >>> >>> CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P >>> June 2009 >>> http://www.cgi.br >>> rev.June 25 2009 >>> >>> The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd >>> ordinary meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of >>> São Paulo, has approved the following Resolution: >>> >>> CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE >>> INTERNET IN BRAZIL >>> >>> Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and >>> decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to >>> approve the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: >>> >>> 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights >>> The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom >>> of expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, >>> recognizing them as essential to the preservation of a fair and >>> democratic society. >>> >>> 2. Democratic and collaborative governance >>> Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral >>> and democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors >>> of society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a >>> collective creation. >>> >>> 3. Universality >>> Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human >>> and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an >>> inclusive and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. >>> >>> 4. Diversity >>> Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression >>> must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or >>> values. >>> >>> >>> 5. Innovation >>> Internet governance must promote the continuous development and >>> widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access >>> and use. >>> >>> 6. Network neutrality >>> Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical >>> criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and >>> cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential >>> treatment. >>> >>> 7. Network unaccountability >>> All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be >>> aimed at those directly responsible for such activities, and not at >>> the means of access and transport, always upholding the fundamental >>> principles of freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. >>> >>> 8. Functionality, security and stability >>> Network stability, security and overall functionality must be >>> actively preserved through the adoption of technical measures that >>> are consistent with international standards and encourage the >>> adoption of best practices. >>> >>> 9. Standardization and interoperability >>> The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate >>> interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. >>> >>> 10. Legal and regulatory environments >>> Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the >>> Internet as a space for collaboration. >>> >>> ==== >>> >>> >>> glaser at nic.br wrote: >>>> >>>> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From pbekono at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 13:31:02 2010 From: pbekono at gmail.com (Pascal Bekono) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:31:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: References: <161606.17838.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <80f151491002101031v1b8823f8xfb9f0042e3ae468a@mail.gmail.com> Hello Dear All, Great ! I am happy to hear that. We will move forward. Pascal 2010/2/10, Marilia Maciel : > > This was a very important step to mainstream young people´s voices in the > IG process. > Congratulations to Rafik and to all members of the DC! > > Marília > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jean-Yves GATETE wrote: > >> well done ! >> congratulations once again, >> >> regards , >> Gatete >> >> Le mer. 10 févr 2010 15:34 CET, Ginger Paque a écrit : >> >> >____________________________________________________________ >> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> >For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 of 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 14:20:54 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:50:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] A 50-Watt Cellular Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: VNL's present focus appears to be cellular telephone services while Village Telco's interests lie in Wifi / mesh networking. If these disruptive technologies are used to provide Internet Access solutions, there is a possibility of solutions beyond telecom dependent networking. Village Telco's business model (of retaining profits for rural and informal settlements rather than feeding a telco) is an indication that telco-independent infrastructure and business models are feasible. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:54 PM, McTim wrote: > Compare this with the village telco model (www.villagetelco.org), > where profits are kept in rural and informal settlements instead of > all going to a telco. > > Mesh potato beta unit draws 2.47 Watts at 12.3 Volts with radio on, > phone on hook, Ethernet and Batman running (3 nodes), ssh remote shell > connected via wireless. When the phone is off hook the power > consumption increases to 3.26 Watts. > > Running gear on sunshine is nothing new either, but this may be the > 1st crack at mass production of fully contained solar systems. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Yehuda Katz > wrote: > > A 50-Watt Cellular Network > > Solar-powered base stations can link up remote rural areas. > > By David Talbot | Wednesday, February 10, 2010 > > > > Art. Ref.: > > > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=24511&channel=communications§ion=# > > > > Print: > > > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=24511&channel=communications§ion=# > > - > > > > An Indian telecom company is deploying simple cell phone base stations > that > > need as little as 50 watts of solar-provided power. It will soon announce > plans > > to sell the equipment in Africa, expanding cell phone access to new ranks > of > > rural villagers who live far from electricity supplies. > > > > Over the past year, VNL, based in Haryana, India, has reengineered > traditional > > cellular base stations to create one that only requires between 50 and > 120 > > watts of power, supplied by a solar-charged battery. The components can > be > > assembled and booted up by two people and mounted on a rooftop in six > hours. > > > > One such station--dubbed a "village station"--can handle hundreds of > users. > > Groups of such village stations feed signals to a required larger VNL > base > > station within five kilometers. In turn that larger station, which is > also > > solar-powered, relays signals to the main network. The village station > can turn > > a profit even if customers spend on average only $2 a month on the > service, > > instead of the $6 required to make traditional systems cost-effective, > the > > company says. > > > > "We've scaled down the cost, the energy, and the equipment so that almost > > anybody can deploy it," says Rajiv Mehrotra, VNL's CEO. "It lends itself > to > > many business models that can serve the bottom of the pyramid," a > reference to > > the roughly 1.5 billion rural people who do not have access to > electricity > > grids around the world. > > > > To date, some 50 VNL base stations have been installed in the Indian > state of > > Rajasthan, introducing thousands of people to cell phone service for the > first > > time. An African rollout is imminent, the company says, without > elaborating. > > The initial batch of 50 stations supports only voice calls, not text or > data, a > > decision mainly based on the fact that many of the new users may not be > able to > > read or write. > > > > Besides enabling basic communication, cell phones can provide enormous > > financial opportunities for rural people, especially if those people > adopt > > services that provide banking and lending via cell phone. More than half > of > > India's 1.1 billion people lack any access to basic financial services, > and > > instead pay usurious rates to local loan sharks. Furthermore, while > > microlending can lift people from poverty, only about 150 million people > > worldwide use such services. Expanded cell networks, together with > banking > > programs geared to the rural poor, could change all of that. > > > > The base station rollouts are "incredibly empowering for the world's > remote and > > low-income masses," says Valerie Rozycki, head of strategic initiatives > at > > mChek, a mobile-payment platform based in Bangalore that is unconnected > with > > VNL. > > > > Expanding cell networks in many rural areas comes down to the > availability of > > sufficient electricity to power base stations. Existing off-the-grid base > > stations in India require expensive diesel generators. "The cost is > substantial > > enough to make many rural markets unprofitable and therefore unwired," > says > > Ethan Zuckerman, cofounder of Global Voices, an aggregator and promoter > of > > blogging worldwide. "Solutions that reduce the cost of building a base > station > > are helpful, and those that reduce the costs of powering a base station > are > > crucial." > > > > Russell Southwood, CEO of Balancing Act, a London-based telecom and > Internet > > consultancy focused on Africa, says low-energy, self-sufficient solutions > will > > be key to expanding cellular access further in the developing world. > "Energy > > costs are particularly high, as [base-station] sites often have two > generators > > and some have three months' supply of fuel," he says. "Anything that cuts > fuel > > costs is bound to be attractive to operators, and it's also a more > sustainable, > > green approach to communications." > > > > But while VNL has optimized its unit for rural areas, it is not the only > > company making low-cost, low-power base stations. "We are seeing a trend > toward > > commoditization" in the cellular industry, says Ray Raychaudhuri, > director of > > WinLab, a wireless research laboratory at Rutgers University. "Where it > was > > traditionally vertically integrated, you are seeing that break down into > > something that looks more like a Wi-Fi architecture, where you can buy a > box > > and install it." > > > > > > Article Links: > > > > Rajiv Mehrotra, CEO, Haryana, India > > http://www.vnl.in/ > > > > Valerie Rozycki, mChek > > http://main.mchek.com/ > > > > Ethan Zuckerman, cofounder of Global Voices > > http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/ > > > > Russell Southwood, CEO of Balancing Act: > > http://www.balancingact-africa.com/about.html > > > > Ray Raychaudhuri, director of WinLab > > http://www.winlab.rutgers.edu/ > > > > > > Copyright Technology Review 2010. > > > > --- > > > > -30- > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 14:35:49 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:05:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: The Brazilian Principles are exemplary. If this set of principles could inspire the Governments the world over, Internet would remain a free and open medium. The Civil Society in Brazil, or better still, the Internet Steering Committee of Brazil could proactively send this as a model document / reference document to friendly governments. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. > > []s frats > > --c.a. > > ==== > > CGI.br > Internet Steering Committee in Brazil > > Principles for the Governance and Use > of the Internet in Brazil > > CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P > June 2009 > http://www.cgi.br > rev.June 25 2009 > > The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd ordinary > meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of São Paulo, has > approved the following Resolution: > > CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE > INTERNET IN BRAZIL > > Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and > decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to approve > the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: > > 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights > The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of > expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, recognizing > them as essential to the preservation of a fair and democratic society. > > 2. Democratic and collaborative governance > Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and > democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors of > society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a collective > creation. > > 3. Universality > Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human and > social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an inclusive > and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. > > 4. Diversity > Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression must > be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or values. > > > 5. Innovation > Internet governance must promote the continuous development and widespread > dissemination of new technologies and models for access and use. > > 6. Network neutrality > Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria > only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or > any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. > > 7. Network unaccountability > All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at > those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the means of > access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of > freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. > > 8. Functionality, security and stability > Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively > preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are consistent > with international standards and encourage the adoption of best practices. > > 9. Standardization and interoperability > The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate > interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. > > 10. Legal and regulatory environments > Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the > Internet as a space for collaboration. > > ==== > > > glaser at nic.br wrote: > >> >> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 14:40:37 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:10:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: <80f151491002101031v1b8823f8xfb9f0042e3ae468a@mail.gmail.com> References: <161606.17838.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <80f151491002101031v1b8823f8xfb9f0042e3ae468a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coatlilition. This would be another step towards inclusion of the Youth in Internet Governance. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Pascal Bekono wrote: > Hello Dear All, > > Great ! I am happy to hear that. We will move forward. > > Pascal > > > 2010/2/10, Marilia Maciel : > >> This was a very important step to mainstream young people´s voices in the >> IG process. >> Congratulations to Rafik and to all members of the DC! >> >> Marília >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jean-Yves GATETE wrote: >> >>> well done ! >>> congratulations once again, >>> >>> regards , >>> Gatete >>> >>> Le mer. 10 févr 2010 15:34 CET, Ginger Paque a écrit : >>> >>> >____________________________________________________________ >>> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> > >>> >For all list information and functions, see: >>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> > >>> >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 of 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 >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 14:49:09 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:49:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] A 50-Watt Cellular Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Siva. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > VNL's present focus appears to be cellular telephone services while Village > Telco's interests lie in Wifi / mesh networking. The mesh potato is designed to do telephony, can do data, but not optimised for it. > > If these disruptive technologies are used to provide Internet Access > solutions, there is a possibility of solutions beyond telecom dependent > networking. > indeed. > Village Telco's business model (of retaining profits for rural and informal > settlements rather than feeding a telco) is an indication that > telco-independent infrastructure and business models are feasible. > That's the plan. -- 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 isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 15:04:38 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:34:38 +0530 Subject: [governance] A 50-Watt Cellular Network In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello McTim, On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 1:19 AM, McTim wrote: > Hi Siva. > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: > > VNL's present focus appears to be cellular telephone services while > Village > > Telco's interests lie in Wifi / mesh networking. > > The mesh potato is designed to do telephony, can do data, but not > optimised for it. > > > > > > > If these disruptive technologies are used to provide Internet Access > > solutions, there is a possibility of solutions beyond telecom dependent > > networking. > > > > indeed. > > > Village Telco's business model (of retaining profits for rural and > informal > > settlements rather than feeding a telco) is an indication that > > telco-independent infrastructure and business models are feasible. > > > > That's the plan. > Lauren Weinstein has posted a message in his NNsquad list, which is interesting in a different way. This is about Google's announcement of a 1 GBPS ( possibly more) ultrahigh speed broadband network in 'a small number of' trial locations across the US with Fiber to Home connections provided to upto 500,000 people. Google Blog http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/think-big-with-gig-our-experimental.htmlpromises "We'll operate an "open access" network, giving users the choice of multiple service providers. And consistent with our past advocacy, we'll manage our network in an open, non-discriminatory and transparent way." Google has already experimented with citywide WiFi in Mountainview, so Google would also be in a position to combine its own WiFi expertise and the expertise from O3B which was initially funded by Google to include rural connectivity at comparable speeds. Google's networks would very possibly be telecom-independent. Good. Very Good. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 15:16:59 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 01:46:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values Message-ID: Hello Isoc India Chennai has proposed a Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values based on the recommendations of the panel of the 2009 IGF Workshop 319. The objective of the dynamic coalition on 'Core Internet Values’ is to debate and find answers to fundamental questions such as “What is the Internet? What makes it what it is? What are its architectural principles? What are the core principles and values? And what is happening to the core values in the process of its evolution? What is it that needs to be preserved and what changes are inevitable? The coalition would seek answers and define the Core Internet Principles and Values. http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/dynamiccoalitions/90-dc-meetings-2009/481-dynamic-coalition-on-core-internet-values This Dynamic Coalition is co-sponsored by OneWebDay and Ian Peter Associates and would invite the Chair and Panelists of the 2009 workshop as lead participants. The Coalition invites the participation of members of this Caucus and associated Civil Society, Business and government Organizations. Please feel free to indicate your interest in participation on or off-list. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andersj at elon.edu Wed Feb 10 17:27:14 2010 From: andersj at elon.edu (Janna Anderson) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 17:27:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] DC on Core Values and FutureWeb conference In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Siva and all, The Imagining the Internet Center and Elon University will support and participate in the DC on core values. - To see our coverage of the IGF 2009 Core Values panel, please go here: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/igf_egypt/core_values.xhtml - Lynn St. Amour of the Internet Society is also organizing a session on Core Values at the FutureWeb conference, co-located with the WWW 2010 global conference in Raleigh, NC, April 28-30. For information, see: http://futureweb2010.wordpress.com/schedule/ Anyone who will be at WWW 2010 is encouraged to contact Lynn if you are interested in participating in the FutureWeb Core Values session ­ st.amour at isoc.org. FutureWeb is being organized by the Imagining the Internet Center. The conference speakers and organizers include Vint Cerf and Chris DiBona of Google, Marc Rotenberg nd Katitza Rodriguez of EPIC, Lee Rainie of the Pew Internet & American Life Project, Doc Searls and danah boyd of the Berkman Center, Bob Sutor of IBM, Bob Young of Lulu.com, Carl Malamud of Public Resource.org, Michael Tiemann of Red Hat, Paul Jones of ibiblio.org, and Michael Rappa of NC State. Other panel leaders may still be looking for top participants. Look at our schedule and let me know if you have an interest and I will point you toward the right contacts. Janna Anderson On 2/10/10 3:16 PM, "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" wrote: > Hello > > Isoc India Chennai has proposed a Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values > based on the recommendations of the panel of the 2009 IGF Workshop 319. > > The objective of the dynamic coalition on 'Core Internet Values¹ is to debate > and find answers to fundamental questions such as ³What is the Internet? What > makes it what it is? What are its architectural principles? What are the core > principles and values? And what is happening to the core values in the process > of its evolution? What is it that needs to be preserved and what changes are > inevitable? The coalition would seek answers and define the Core Internet > Principles and Values. > > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/dynamiccoalitions/90-dc-meetings-2009 > /481-dynamic-coalition-on-core-internet-values > > This Dynamic Coalition is co-sponsored by OneWebDay and Ian Peter Associates > and would invite the Chair and Panelists of the 2009 workshop as lead > participants. The Coalition invites the participation of members of this > Caucus and associated Civil Society, Business and government Organizations. > Please feel free to indicate your interest in participation on or off-list. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > -- > Janna Quitney Anderson > Director of Imagining the Internet > www.imaginingtheinternet.org > Senior Fellow, Pew Internet & American Life Project > > Associate Professor > School of Communications > Elon University > andersj at elon.edu > (336) 278-5733 (o) > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 21:23:12 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:23:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: <4B72C3EF.2040609@gmail.com> References: <4B72C3EF.2040609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello, Thank you Ginger for sharing information about the launch of the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance but also for your support to the initiative. We are still on the process to bring more members and supporters to our coalition. and expanding our membership. I want also to share that contribution we did to IGF and we want to know IGF members feedback ( http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Contributions2009/contributiony.doc). it was really good that many people mentioned youth during OC. Regards Rafik 2010/2/10 Ginger Paque > Hi everybody, > > The launch of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Youth was announced yesterday at > the Open Consultation meeting. I congratulate you all on a dynamic start, > and hope you will keep your energy and perseverance going towards productive > involvement in the IG process. Rafik or others, can you post an update here? > > We saw yesterday the importance of reporting back by the Dynamic > Coalitions. The OCs, IGF Secretariat and other stakeholders need to stay > informed of activities and participation by the DCs. The OC and MAG need to > be reminded of the activities and importance of the DCs, but the DCs must be > active and communicative for this to happen. We hope to hear from you in the > near future. > > Best, > Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 21:27:31 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:27:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: References: <161606.17838.qm@web27802.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <80f151491002101031v1b8823f8xfb9f0042e3ae468a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello All, Thanks to Siva, Fouad, Marilia, Jean-Yves, Pascal and Andres for your support. For the coalition, we hope more cooperation between us and IGC. I will try to send updates to the list about the coalition activities. Rafik 2010/2/11 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coatlilition. This would be another > step towards inclusion of the Youth in Internet Governance. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Pascal Bekono wrote: > >> Hello Dear All, >> >> Great ! I am happy to hear that. We will move forward. >> >> Pascal >> >> >> 2010/2/10, Marilia Maciel : >> >>> This was a very important step to mainstream young people´s voices in the >>> IG process. >>> Congratulations to Rafik and to all members of the DC! >>> >>> Marília >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Jean-Yves GATETE >> > wrote: >>> >>>> well done ! >>>> congratulations once again, >>>> >>>> regards , >>>> Gatete >>>> >>>> Le mer. 10 févr 2010 15:34 CET, Ginger Paque a écrit : >>>> >>>> >____________________________________________________________ >>>> >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> > >>>> >For all list information and functions, see: >>>> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> > >>>> >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 of 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 >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 21:28:23 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 22:28:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: References: <4B72C3EF.2040609@gmail.com> Message-ID: Dear Rafik, I told one group of my students this afternoon about your initiative - I'm glad you sent the document which I will also share with them. Congratulations and best wishes Deirdre On 10 February 2010 22:23, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hello, > > Thank you Ginger for sharing information about the launch of the Youth > Coalition on Internet Governance but also for your support to the > initiative. > We are still on the process to bring more members and supporters to our > coalition. > and expanding our membership. > I want also to share that contribution we did to IGF and we want to know > IGF members feedback ( > http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Contributions2009/contributiony.doc). it > was really good that many people mentioned youth during OC. > > Regards > > Rafik > > 2010/2/10 Ginger Paque > >> Hi everybody, >> >> The launch of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Youth was announced yesterday >> at the Open Consultation meeting. I congratulate you all on a dynamic start, >> and hope you will keep your energy and perseverance going towards productive >> involvement in the IG process. Rafik or others, can you post an update here? >> >> We saw yesterday the importance of reporting back by the Dynamic >> Coalitions. The OCs, IGF Secretariat and other stakeholders need to stay >> informed of activities and participation by the DCs. The OC and MAG need to >> be reminded of the activities and importance of the DCs, but the DCs must be >> active and communicative for this to happen. We hope to hear from you in the >> near future. >> >> Best, >> Ginger >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Feb 10 21:39:40 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 05:39:40 +0300 Subject: [governance] Iran suspends Gmail??? Message-ID: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100210/iran-suspends-googles-email-service.htm I wonder how "successful" they will be. -- 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 maja.andjelkovic at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 02:47:17 2010 From: maja.andjelkovic at gmail.com (maja.andjelkovic at gmail.com) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:47:17 +0000 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: References: <4B72C3EF.2040609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <755803539-1265874400-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-2039407080-@bda2124.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> P ------------------ -----Original Message----- From: Rafik Dammak Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:23:12 To: ; Ginger Paque Subject: Re: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition Hello, Thank you Ginger for sharing information about the launch of the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance but also for your support to the initiative. We are still on the process to bring more members and supporters to our coalition. and expanding our membership. I want also to share that contribution we did to IGF and we want to know IGF members feedback ( http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/Contributions2009/contributiony.doc). it was really good that many people mentioned youth during OC. Regards Rafik 2010/2/10 Ginger Paque > Hi everybody, > > The launch of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Youth was announced yesterday at > the Open Consultation meeting. I congratulate you all on a dynamic start, > and hope you will keep your energy and perseverance going towards productive > involvement in the IG process. Rafik or others, can you post an update here? > > We saw yesterday the importance of reporting back by the Dynamic > Coalitions. The OCs, IGF Secretariat and other stakeholders need to stay > informed of activities and participation by the DCs. The OC and MAG need to > be reminded of the activities and importance of the DCs, but the DCs must be > active and communicative for this to happen. We hope to hear from you in the > near future. > > Best, > Ginger > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From b.schombe at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 03:38:49 2010 From: b.schombe at gmail.com (Baudouin SCHOMBE) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:38:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Congratulations to the Youth Dynamic Coalition In-Reply-To: <701af9f71002100722q47655961qbc6d42b817f65eb@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B72C3EF.2040609@gmail.com> <701af9f71002100722q47655961qbc6d42b817f65eb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > very very good news and congratulations for this result > Baudouin > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Ginger Paque wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > > > The launch of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Youth was announced yesterday > at > > the Open Consultation meeting. I congratulate you all on a dynamic start, > > and hope you will keep your energy and perseverance going towards > productive > > involvement in the IG process. Rafik or others, can you post an update > here? > > > > We saw yesterday the importance of reporting back by the Dynamic > Coalitions. > > The OCs, IGF Secretariat and other stakeholders need to stay informed of > > activities and participation by the DCs. The OC and MAG need to be > reminded > > of the activities and importance of the DCs, but the DCs must be active > and > > communicative for this to happen. We hope to hear from you in the near > > future. > > > > Best, > > Ginger > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > > -- > Regards. > -------------------------- > Fouad Bajwa > Advisor & Researcher > ICT4D & Internet Governance > Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) > Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) > My Blog: Internet's Governance > http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ > Follow my Tweets: > http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa > MAG Interview: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 11 05:11:14 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:11:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] Iran suspends Gmail??? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5s2eyktCf9cLFAy7@perry.co.uk> In message , at 05:39:40 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, McTim writes >http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100210/iran-suspends-googles-email-service.htm Curiously, that page redirects (on my PC, anyway) to a site called http:lmloldongseu which has a significant amount of dodgy looking material (and 25 blocked pop-ups) before I killed it. ... on the other hand, seems to be the article you mention. -- 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 dan.oppermann at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 05:44:42 2010 From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:44:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] Iran suspends Gmail??? In-Reply-To: <5s2eyktCf9cLFAy7@perry.co.uk> References: <5s2eyktCf9cLFAy7@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <304bc041002110244x1d8bf527x8b34fff218e768af@mail.gmail.com> I had the same problem... better not click on the link! it seems that the site of the article mentioned contains malware. but the IBTimes already put up another article (this link was clean, when I used it): http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/7318/20100210/iran-to-shut-down-google-email-service-report.htm Besides that on google there are plenty of other articles on the topic. Daniel 2010/2/11 Roland Perry > In message > , at 05:39:40 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, McTim writes > > > http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100210/iran-suspends-googles-email-service.htm > > Curiously, that page redirects (on my PC, anyway) to a site called > http:lmloldongseu which has a significant amount > of dodgy looking material (and 25 blocked pop-ups) before I killed it. > > email-service-report.htm > > > > ... on the other hand, seems to be the article you mention. > -- > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Feb 11 06:11:47 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:11:47 +0000 Subject: [governance] Iran suspends Gmail??? In-Reply-To: <304bc041002110244x1d8bf527x8b34fff218e768af@mail.gmail.com> References: <5s2eyktCf9cLFAy7@perry.co.uk> <304bc041002110244x1d8bf527x8b34fff218e768af@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <84qf3TxzX+cLFADS@perry.co.uk> In message <304bc041002110244x1d8bf527x8b34fff218e768af at mail.gmail.com>, at 08:44:42 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Daniel Oppermann writes >I had the same problem... better not click on the link! it seems that >the site of the article mentioned contains malware. but the IBTimes >already put up another article I'm sorry if I don't really follow what's going on here, but it seems that the IBTimes has an article that has become infected with malware and they have neither removed the malware, nor removed the article. What's going on?? -- 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 dan.oppermann at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 06:38:54 2010 From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:38:54 -0200 Subject: [governance] Iran suspends Gmail??? In-Reply-To: <84qf3TxzX+cLFADS@perry.co.uk> References: <5s2eyktCf9cLFAy7@perry.co.uk> <304bc041002110244x1d8bf527x8b34fff218e768af@mail.gmail.com> <84qf3TxzX+cLFADS@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <304bc041002110338t6760a791ge916a7f7d8f564f9@mail.gmail.com> that's how it seems, Roland. however, the walware warning is related to the link that was sent in the first email concerning this topic. if you wanna access a clean website just go to IBTimes.com and you will find a clean link to the article on the left side in the news section. or choose a different news service, the info can be found in lots of them. Daniel 2010/2/11 Roland Perry > In message <304bc041002110244x1d8bf527x8b34fff218e768af at mail.gmail.com>, > at 08:44:42 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Daniel Oppermann > writes > > I had the same problem... better not click on the link! it seems that the >> site of the article mentioned contains malware. but the IBTimes already put >> up another article >> > > I'm sorry if I don't really follow what's going on here, but it seems that > the IBTimes has an article that has become infected with malware and they > have neither removed the malware, nor removed the article. > > What's going on?? > -- > 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: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 06:54:22 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:54:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] WARNING!!!! DO NOT OPEN LINK on "Iran suspends Gmail???" Message-ID: It is loaded with trojans and I don't know what else. I am flabberbgasted that these two gentlemen tried the link saw it infected and insstead of posting a WARNING, they are busy debating about a clean link! Rui On 11 February 2010 04:39, McTim wrote: > > http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20100210/iran-suspends-googles-email-service.htm > > I wonder how "successful" they will be. > > -- > 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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 11 07:20:00 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:20:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Iran suspends Gmail??? In-Reply-To: <304bc041002110338t6760a791ge916a7f7d8f564f9@mail.gmail.com> References: <5s2eyktCf9cLFAy7@perry.co.uk> <304bc041002110244x1d8bf527x8b34fff218e768af@mail.gmail.com> <84qf3TxzX+cLFADS@perry.co.uk> <304bc041002110338t6760a791ge916a7f7d8f564f9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Apologies to all, the I got no popups or other evidence of malware when I viewed/sent the link. -- Cheers, McTim On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Daniel Oppermann wrote: > that's how it seems, Roland. however, the walware warning is related to the > link that was sent in the first email concerning this topic. if you wanna > access a clean website just go to IBTimes.com and you will find a clean link > to the article on the left side in the news section. > > or choose a different news service, the info can be found in lots of them. > > Daniel > > > > > 2010/2/11 Roland Perry >> >> In message <304bc041002110244x1d8bf527x8b34fff218e768af at mail.gmail.com>, >> at 08:44:42 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Daniel Oppermann >> writes >>> >>> I had the same problem... better not click on the link! it seems that the >>> site of the article mentioned contains malware. but the IBTimes already put >>> up another article >> >> I'm sorry if I don't really follow what's going on here, but it seems that >> the IBTimes has an article that has become infected with malware and they >> have neither removed the malware, nor removed the article. >> >> What's going on?? >> -- >> 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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Feb 11 07:23:38 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:23:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] WARNING!!!! DO NOT OPEN LINK on "Iran suspends Gmail???" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9o0fTk1Kb$cLFASZ@perry.co.uk> In message , at 13:54:22 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Rui Correia writes >I am flabberbgasted that these two gentlemen tried the link saw it infected >and insstead of posting a WARNING, I considered my comments already posted here to be sufficient warning. What surprised me, is that I seem to be the first person to have announced the problem. Where is McTim when you need him?? -- 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 correia.rui at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 07:40:39 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:40:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] WARNING!!!! DO NOT OPEN LINK on "Iran suspends In-Reply-To: <9o0fTk1Kb$cLFASZ@perry.co.uk> References: <9o0fTk1Kb$cLFASZ@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: Hi Roland and Daniel Apologies, for my remarks about you. I was rather angry at the time, as my browser would not let me fight the invasion of pop-ups - which would jump aside if I tried to close them, the downloader was trying to force me to download a movie clip, Jews.wmv, while a laughing voice repeatedly cried out "Hey everybody, I'm looking at gay porno". I had to close the browser completely, losing quite a number of pages that had taken me time to assemble, from which I was doing research. What I find strange is that I'd presume that IBTIMES would want to ensure its reputation and deal with the matter. Regards, Rui On 11 February 2010 14:23, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , > at 13:54:22 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Rui Correia > writes > > I am flabberbgasted that these two gentlemen tried the link saw it >> infected >> and insstead of posting a WARNING, >> > > I considered my comments already posted here to be sufficient warning. > > What surprised me, is that I seem to be the first person to have announced > the problem. Where is McTim when you need him?? > -- > 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 > -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 11 07:53:16 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:53:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] WARNING!!!! DO NOT OPEN LINK on "Iran suspends In-Reply-To: <9o0fTk1Kb$cLFASZ@perry.co.uk> References: <9o0fTk1Kb$cLFASZ@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Roland Perry wrote: > In message , at > 13:54:22 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Rui Correia writes >> >> I am flabberbgasted that these two gentlemen tried the link saw it >> infected >> and insstead of posting a WARNING, > > I considered my comments already posted here to be sufficient warning. > > What surprised me, is that I seem to be the first person to have announced > the problem. Where is McTim when you need him?? Was up a mast (ok, more of a Gum tree, really), replacing some kit for a school, mea culpa. I've just tried the link again, I see no evidence of malware. Rui, perhaps your box is infected, and that link just triggered a dormant virus?? In any case, this subject matter is still very bad news, not so much for Google, but for Iranian netizens. -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 08:00:33 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:00:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Iran and Gmail : a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article Message-ID: <954259bd1002110500y4aa0c13j12e5dc0bce06e4bc@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, I had the same problem as others with the link that was provided. But there is a clean link to an article from the Wall Street Jounal on that topic : See the WSJ article at : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704140104575057621649270154.html Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 11 08:05:49 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:05:49 +0000 Subject: [governance] WARNING!!!! DO NOT OPEN LINK on "Iran suspends Gmail???" In-Reply-To: References: <9o0fTk1Kb$cLFASZ@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <5k8eQS4tCAdLFAK3@perry.co.uk> In message , at 15:53:16 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, McTim writes >I've just tried the link again, I see no evidence of malware. It seems to have been cleaned. (And others have told me off-list that there was a problem earlier). -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 11 08:27:11 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:27:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] WARNING!!!! DO NOT OPEN LINK on "Iran suspends Gmail???" In-Reply-To: References: <9o0fTk1Kb$cLFASZ@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: In message , at 14:40:39 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Rui Correia writes >What I find strange is that I'd presume that IBTIMES would want to ensure >its reputation and deal with the matter. I wonder if they'll issue some sort of explanation, including how the infection happened. -- Roland Perry ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dan.oppermann at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 08:29:53 2010 From: dan.oppermann at gmail.com (Daniel Oppermann) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:29:53 -0200 Subject: [governance] WARNING!!!! DO NOT OPEN LINK on "Iran suspends In-Reply-To: References: <9o0fTk1Kb$cLFASZ@perry.co.uk> Message-ID: <304bc041002110529i43f82f9ck959a69bee6b9a1f5@mail.gmail.com> No problem, Rui. Thanks to your warning mail everyone should have understood by now. Daniel 2010/2/11 Rui Correia > Hi Roland and Daniel > > Apologies, for my remarks about you. > > I was rather angry at the time, as my browser would not let me fight the > invasion of pop-ups - which would jump aside if I tried to close them, the > downloader was trying to force me to download a movie clip, Jews.wmv, while > a laughing voice repeatedly cried out "Hey everybody, I'm looking at gay > porno". > > I had to close the browser completely, losing quite a number of pages that > had taken me time to assemble, from which I was doing research. > > What I find strange is that I'd presume that IBTIMES would want to ensure > its reputation and deal with the matter. > > Regards, > > Rui > > On 11 February 2010 14:23, Roland Perry wrote: > >> In message , >> at 13:54:22 on Thu, 11 Feb 2010, Rui Correia >> writes >> >> I am flabberbgasted that these two gentlemen tried the link saw it >>> infected >>> and insstead of posting a WARNING, >>> >> >> I considered my comments already posted here to be sufficient warning. >> >> What surprised me, is that I seem to be the first person to have announced >> the problem. Where is McTim when you need him?? >> -- >> 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 >> > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Thu Feb 11 08:47:31 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:47:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Norway court rejects industry bid to block The Pirate Bay, but Italian Court agrees References: <972B89B6-D4BC-49B2-A6C6-C26CEB6526E9@privacy.org> Message-ID: > > > Norway court rejects industry bid to block The Pirate Bay > (AFP) – 22 hours ago > OSLO — A Norwegian court has rejected a record industry appeal > against telecoms operator Telenor for refusing to block access to > popular file sharing website The Pirate Bay, a plaintiff said > Wednesday. > The Oslo court of appeal said that it is not currently possible, > under Norwegian law, for a judge to order an Internet service > provider to halt traffic to websites from which illegal downloading > happens. > "In the spirit of the law on intellectual property, Telenor does not > contribute to behaviour that is reprehensible or could be subject to > awarding compensation" by letting its customers access The Pirate Bay. > The extract of the court's verdict was published by Tono which is > Norway's Performing Rights Society and one of the plaintiffs in the > case. > Tono argues that the European directive on intellectual property > "has not been correctly implemented in Norwegian law." > Before the case was first heard in November last year, Telenor > argued that it refused to implement what it called "censorship." > "You cannot sue a ladder manufacturer because someone used one of > his ladders to commit a burglary," Atle Lessum, a spokesman for > Telenor, told the newspaper Verdens Gang before the hearing. > "We therefore reject imposed censorship like this," he added. > The Norwegian government has announced it would review its > intellectual property law in the light of new technologies. > Founded in 2003, The Pirate Bay makes it possible to skirt copyright > fees and share music, film and computer game files using bit torrent > technology, or peer-to-peer links offered on the site. > None of the material can be found on The Pirate Bay server itself. > > > > > ---- > > Music Industry News Network [02-10-2010] > Italian Court Orders ISPs To Block The Pirate Bay > > > www.mi2n.com > > The Court of Bergamo in Italy has again ruled that ISPs should act > to prevent their users from accessing The Pirate Bay, the BitTorrent > service that facilitates access to a large amount of copyright > infringing material. > > The court originally ordered ISPs to act in 2008, but that verdict > was appealed and overturned. A subsequent ruling by the Italian > Supreme Court declared that ISPs could be required to block > BitTorrent sites being illegally used to disseminate copyright > infringing content, even if they are located outside the country. > The Supreme Court ruled that sites hosting torrent files play a > significant role in the uploading and downloading process of their > users, constituting a form of complicity in the offence of copyright > infringement. > > The Court of Bergamo heard the case again this week and in light of > the Supreme Court's judgment, ruled that all Italian ISPs should > block their users' access to The Pirate Bay. The Italian Fiscal > Police have notified all the ISPs with the order to block The Pirate > Bay. > > The case was originally brought before the Court of Bergamo > following a criminal complaint by rights holders, represented by > FPM, the music industry anti-piracy group. The Pirate Bay illegally > facilitates access to many forms of copyright infringing material, > including music, films, television programmes and games. The > operators of the service, who have criminal convictions in Sweden, > openly flout copyright laws while driving advertising revenues > through the service. > > > Source: http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=127167 > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: animlogo3.gif Type: image/gif Size: 9689 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 10:36:06 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 18:36:06 +0300 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" Message-ID: Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next IGF? -- 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 Feb 11 10:39:32 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 21:09:32 +0530 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> yes, it is so. parminder McTim wrote: > Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next IGF? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 10:41:34 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:41:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I hope that's a good omen for the human rights/human aspects/human involvement issues? Deirdre On 11 February 2010 11:39, Parminder wrote: > yes, it is so. parminder > > McTim wrote: > > Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next IGF? > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Thu Feb 11 10:46:39 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 15:46:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> Also for the advancement of Internet to the disadvangated communities. Best regards, Hakik At 03:41 PM 2/11/2010, Deirdre Williams wrote: >I hope that's a good omen for the human rights/human aspects/human >involvement issues? >Deirdre > >On 11 February 2010 11:39, Parminder ><parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >yes, it is so. parminder > >McTim wrote: >> >>Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next IGF? >> >> >> > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > >-- >"The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir >William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 12:36:00 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:06:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> Message-ID: "Developing the Future Together " as a theme is broad enough to be a fusion of several sub themes. It sounds very positive and looks forward. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > Also for the advancement of Internet to the disadvangated communities. > > Best regards, > Hakik > > > At 03:41 PM 2/11/2010, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > I hope that's a good omen for the human rights/human aspects/human > involvement issues? > Deirdre > > On 11 February 2010 11:39, Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: > yes, it is so. parminder > > McTim wrote: > > > Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next > IGF? > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > 典he 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 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Thu Feb 11 18:46:13 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 04:46:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f71002111546k4c441e76q197ce3e5591417d@mail.gmail.com> Yeup that's the slogan for this year. On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:36 PM, McTim wrote: > Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next IGF? > > -- > 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 > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Advisor & Researcher ICT4D & Internet Governance Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From anja at cis-india.org Fri Feb 12 06:00:16 2010 From: anja at cis-india.org (Anja Kovacs) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:30:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> Message-ID: <4B7534C0.1050205@cis-india.org> This seems a very hopeful evolution. Could those who were part of the MAG meeting please tell us a little more about whether we do indeed have reason to be optimistic? And what are the main sessions that have been agreed on? Also, I would be interested in knowing whether the next round of OC and MAG meeting will be following the traditional format, or whether it will resemble the planning meeting of last September. The IGF's website seems to indicate the former, but it would be good to get confirmation. Thanks and best wishes, Anja On Thursday 11 February 2010 11:06 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > "Developing the Future Together " as a theme is broad enough to be a fusion > of several sub themes. It sounds very positive and looks forward. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > >> Also for the advancement of Internet to the disadvangated communities. >> >> Best regards, >> Hakik >> >> >> At 03:41 PM 2/11/2010, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> I hope that's a good omen for the human rights/human aspects/human >> involvement issues? >> Deirdre >> >> On 11 February 2010 11:39, Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >> yes, it is so. parminder >> >> McTim wrote: >> >> >> Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next >> IGF? >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 典he 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Feb 12 07:25:56 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:25:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: <4B7534C0.1050205@cis-india.org> References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> <4B7534C0.1050205@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <4B7548D4.9050406@wzb.eu> Anja Kovacs wrote: > This seems a very hopeful evolution. Could those who were part of the > MAG meeting please tell us a little more about whether we do indeed have > reason to be optimistic? And what are the main sessions that have been > agreed on? Hi Anja, the minutes of the MAG meeting will probably be released on Monday. These will give details about the main sessions and sub-themes. The thematic structure will largely reflect that of the past year with the WSIS principles session being replaced by an Internet governance for development (IG4D)session. All of this will be preliminary as the UN SG needs to give his consent. > > Also, I would be interested in knowing whether the next round of OC and > MAG meeting will be following the traditional format, or whether it will > resemble the planning meeting of last September. The IGF's website > seems to indicate the former, but it would be good to get confirmation. The May meeting (10/11) will consist of two days of open consultation to prepare the program for the next IGF and a one day closed meeting for the MAG to consider its own future - should there be one. jeanette > > Thanks and best wishes, > Anja > > On Thursday 11 February 2010 11:06 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> "Developing the Future Together " as a theme is broad enough to be a fusion >> of several sub themes. It sounds very positive and looks forward. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: >> >>> Also for the advancement of Internet to the disadvangated communities. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Hakik >>> >>> >>> At 03:41 PM 2/11/2010, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> I hope that's a good omen for the human rights/human aspects/human >>> involvement issues? >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 11 February 2010 11:39, Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >>> yes, it is so. parminder >>> >>> McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>> Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next >>> IGF? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 典he 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Fri Feb 12 08:57:25 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:57:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: <4B7548D4.9050406@wzb.eu> References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> <4B7534C0.1050205@cis-india.org> <4B7548D4.9050406@wzb.eu> Message-ID: hi, On 12 Feb 2010, at 13:25, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > The May meeting (10/11) will consist of two days of open consultation to prepare the program for the next IGF and a one day closed meeting for the MAG to consider its own future - should there be one. I am not sure whether the MAG meeting on the structure and purpose of the MAG will be open or closed. I think there is a good chance that it will be an open meeting but that will need to be confirmed. there may also be some items on the MAG agenda related to the agenda if there are any recommendation that need to be developed. Anja Kovacs wrote: >> The IGF's website >> seems to indicate the former, but it would be good to get confirmation. Hasn't been much time to change much about the website since yesterday. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Feb 12 09:34:37 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:34:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> <4B7534C0.1050205@cis-india.org> <4B7548D4.9050406@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B7566FD.1000002@wzb.eu> Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > On 12 Feb 2010, at 13:25, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> The May meeting (10/11) will consist of two days of open >> consultation to prepare the program for the next IGF and a one day >> closed meeting for the MAG to consider its own future - should >> there be one. > > > I am not sure whether the MAG meeting on the structure and purpose of > the MAG will be open or closed. I think there is a good chance that > it will be an open meeting but that will need to be confirmed. thanks for clarification, Avri. It would make sense to me to go for an open meeting and I would very much support this. jeanette there > may also be some items on the MAG agenda related to the agenda if > there are any recommendation that need to be developed. > > Anja Kovacs wrote: > >>> The IGF's website seems to indicate the former, but it would be >>> good to get confirmation. > > Hasn't been much time to change much about the website since > yesterday. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Feb 12 10:12:34 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:12:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: <4B7566FD.1000002@wzb.eu> References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> <4B7534C0.1050205@cis-india.org> <4B7548D4.9050406@wzb.eu> <4B7566FD.1000002@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20100212151110.01a9a1e0@hakik.org> Thanks to Avri for the clarification, and at the same time support Jeanette´s proposal for an open meeting. Best regards, Hakikur At 02:34 PM 2/12/2010, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Avri Doria wrote: >>hi, >>On 12 Feb 2010, at 13:25, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >>>The May meeting (10/11) will consist of two days of open >>>consultation to prepare the program for the next IGF and a one day >>>closed meeting for the MAG to consider its own future - should >>>there be one. >> >>I am not sure whether the MAG meeting on the structure and purpose of >>the MAG will be open or closed. I think there is a good chance that >>it will be an open meeting but that will need to be confirmed. > >thanks for clarification, Avri. It would make >sense to me to go for an open meeting and I would very much support this. > >jeanette > there >>may also be some items on the MAG agenda related to the agenda if >>there are any recommendation that need to be developed. >>Anja Kovacs wrote: >> >>>>The IGF's website seems to indicate the former, but it would be >>>>good to get confirmation. >>Hasn't been much time to change much about the website since >>yesterday. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Feb 13 08:42:17 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:12:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs President of US: $400,000 Message-ID: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> Begin forwarded message: From: Karl Auerbach Date: February 12, 2010 12:14:42 AM EST To: David Farber Subject: ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs President of US: $400,000 Reply-To: karl at cavebear.com ICANN has published, as it must as a tax exempt charitable corporation, the salary it gifts unto its President: http://bit.ly/ametyG ICANN's president gets $750,000 plus a $195,000 spiff - $945,000, plus expenses. The amount is more than double the compensation of the President of the United Status: $400,000 plus $50,000 for expenses. The amount is about four times the compensation of the Secretary General of the United Nations. Is there perhaps some truth to the rumor that ICANN is soon going to be buying a pair of Airbus 380's to call "Domain Name One" as they transport its President? --karl-- ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com !DSPAM:2676,4b75ca14177551595316302! ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sat Feb 13 14:56:06 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 01:26:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs In-Reply-To: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> Message-ID: Hello Michael Gurstein I feel that $ 750, 000 + is perfectly alright. Given his background and exposure, any business corporation should have been willing to 'poach' Rod Beckstorm from wherever he was for well over a million dollars a year. So, he is not overpaid by ICANN. This was one of the topics that I wrote about in Circle ID a year ago, http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090106_icann_pay_more_increase_spending/omething that I wrote last year in Circle ID , if it is of any interest. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:12 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Karl Auerbach > Date: February 12, 2010 12:14:42 AM EST > To: David Farber > Subject: ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs President of US: > $400,000 > Reply-To: karl at cavebear.com > > > ICANN has published, as it must as a tax exempt charitable corporation, the > salary it gifts unto its President: http://bit.ly/ametyG > > ICANN's president gets $750,000 plus a $195,000 spiff - $945,000, plus > expenses. > > The amount is more than double the compensation of the President of the > United Status: $400,000 plus $50,000 for expenses. > > The amount is about four times the compensation of the Secretary General of > the United Nations. > > Is there perhaps some truth to the rumor that ICANN is soon going to be > buying a pair of Airbus 380's to call "Domain Name One" as they transport > its President? > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > !DSPAM:2676,4b75ca14177551595316302! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Sat Feb 13 17:15:58 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF Message-ID: <12148B1B-96BC-405E-BE71-DDF29A0AD105@ciroap.org> Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final decision. UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its upcoming May meeting. The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD first. Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Sun Feb 14 04:48:37 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 11:48:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the Message-ID: Yes, I think there should be a statement. After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European) governments as well as from private sector representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD would be cut out of the process. The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and ECOSOC, and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the perfortmance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector representatives have much better access and opportunity to influence the proceedings at the CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. Yrjö Länsipuro From: jeremy at ciroap.org Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final decision. UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its upcoming May meeting. The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD first. Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? -- 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 1599CI is 50Consumers 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. _________________________________________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Feb 14 06:04:33 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:04:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Dear list I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises its voice in this case. My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues and decision making. This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial work the CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It emerged as the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007 where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a "used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva 2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral convention" are only governments. The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later taken for granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send you to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the archives and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to draft a resolution with a follow up. I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also hundreds of "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. You can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or lobby) delegates. With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU when he was asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism". During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked officially to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under fire. I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay united. And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the 2010s. Best wishes Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the Yes, I think there should be a statement. After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European) governments as well as from private sector representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD would be cut out of the process. The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and ECOSOC, and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the perfortmance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector representatives have much better access and opportunity to influence the proceedings at the CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. Yrjö Länsipuro ________________________________ From: jeremy at ciroap.org Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final decision. UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its upcoming May meeting. The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD first. Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? -- 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. ________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Feb 14 08:36:42 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:36:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <84E8069D-7B16-4623-87AE-A135574F704C@datos-personales.org> Greetings: Thanks for sharing your substantial thoughts on this overall process, Wolfgang/Yrjö. While IGC where discussing its statement, I have asked the list members to hear your opinions on this specific tension. I received only one very brief comment on the history and the tensions of the broader picture. Therefore, I would like to add a call to your call, that there is a need to share strategics and knowledge between everyone (old/young generations) and with other stakeholders, if we want to suceed! We should write a statement! On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Dear list > > I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises > its voice in this case. > > My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move > backwards, to cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to > withdraw from the principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to > get the Internet policy processes back under control of an > intergovernmental regime and to silence non-governmental > stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues and > decision making. > > This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the > Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and > was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet > Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) > approach". The acceptance of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in > their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was > paved by the constructive and substantial work the CS folks did > during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil > Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed > over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the > Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results > of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch > of the IGF as a "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result > of this. It emerged as the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF > debate because governments were unable to agree on "enhanced > cooperation" (which in the understanding of many delegates was aimed > to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). > > However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of > "sharing power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in > 2006 and 2007 where governmental representatives were questioning > the presence of non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go > to the transcripts of these meetings then you will discover that - > as an example - the Chinese delegate never uses the word > "multistakholderism" but always the term "multilateral" when it > comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a "used language" > in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva 2003 > compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for > international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding > of "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral > convention" are only governments. > > The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was > first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later > taken for granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of > Geneva", it was not the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN > people in New York they send you to the moon of you raise > "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop global policies. > No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The so-called > "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy > development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the > archives and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New > York was ready to draft a resolution with a follow up. > > I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people > the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is > driven also by the political strategic aim to remove > "multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public > arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported by > some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the > secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency, formal > outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence non- > governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do not > buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. > > The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also > hundreds of "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non- > governmental stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the > International Association for Media and Communication Research > (IAMCR), where I am an elected member of the International Council > and the liaison to ECOSOC - is officially recognized by ECOSOC since > the 1960s. But the only thing we can do is to send written > statements which are published before the meeting. You can speculate > how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes several > hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to > speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to > brief (or lobby) delegates. > > With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an > open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental > stakeholders. It re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse- > trading behind closed doors. It is like in the pre-WSIS time when > civil society (and private sector) were removed from the room after > the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real > debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to > change this. > > This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled > by the planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" > is led by three intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & > UNCTAD). During the recent preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was > no non-governmental stakeholder on the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU > Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs relationship with NGOs > and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU when he was > asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism". > > During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a > CS Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked > officially to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental > mechanisms - which emerged as functioning units during the WSIS > process - more or less disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only > remaining functioning of "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the > UNCSTD. And this is now also under fire. > > I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG > leaders and activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not > forget the bigger political environment. In many places you are not > welcomed. What you need beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also > a clear political strategy to find the places where you can make > your substantial arguments. You have permanently to reconsider your > role and self-understanding in the micro AND macro processes. And > you have to look for partners, both among "friendly governments" and > private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a certain degree > - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay united. > > And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet > Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the > Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the > implementation of the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 > strategy. > > Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this > exciting times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also > for the 2010s. > > Best wishes > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] > Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the > > > > Yes, I think there should be a statement. > > After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations > that it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", > there were immediate reactions from other stateholders, many > (European) governments as well as from private sector > representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD would be cut out of > the process. > > > The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the > implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and > ECOSOC, and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted > the ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments > on the perfortmance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden > departure from this process on the question of the continuation of > the IGF. > > > As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement > last summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector > representatives have much better access and opportunity to influence > the proceedings at the CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the > ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak > about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. > > > Yrjö Länsipuro > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: jeremy at ciroap.org > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the > continuation of the IGF > > Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have > subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement > between UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's > recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered, > prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final > decision. > > UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the > Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly > to ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of > ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those recommendations first, > for consideration at its upcoming May meeting. > > The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader > range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, > including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for > civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's > recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD first. > > Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? > > > -- > 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. > > > > ________________________________ > > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign > up now. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Feb 14 08:38:41 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:38:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs In-Reply-To: References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> Message-ID: <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> Hi, You compare ICANN to profit making corporations. I do not think that is appropriate. ICANN should be compared to an NGO as a non profit for the good of the public corporation. By and large, it is not considered proper to pay CEOs more then $500,000 in this environment - and when it happens, it is controversial. Even American Red Cross only pays around 500,000 per year. And we cannot say the work of ICANN is more complex or more important than that. Of course JP Morgan's Partners HealthCare Systems in Boston takes home $2.7 million, so if ICANN is more like the healthcare industry then like a stewardship NGO, there is a ways to grow yet. a. On 13 Feb 2010, at 14:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Michael Gurstein > > I feel that $ 750, 000 + is perfectly alright. Given his background and exposure, any business corporation should have been willing to 'poach' Rod Beckstorm from wherever he was for well over a million dollars a year. So, he is not overpaid by ICANN. > > This was one of the topics that I wrote about in Circle ID a year ago, http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090106_icann_pay_more_increase_spending/ome thing that I wrote last year in Circle ID , if it is of any interest. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:12 PM, michael gurstein wrote: > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Karl Auerbach > Date: February 12, 2010 12:14:42 AM EST > To: David Farber > Subject: ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs President of US: > $400,000 > Reply-To: karl at cavebear.com > > > ICANN has published, as it must as a tax exempt charitable corporation, the > salary it gifts unto its President: http://bit.ly/ametyG > > ICANN's president gets $750,000 plus a $195,000 spiff - $945,000, plus > expenses. > > The amount is more than double the compensation of the President of the > United Status: $400,000 plus $50,000 for expenses. > > The amount is about four times the compensation of the Secretary General of > the United Nations. > > Is there perhaps some truth to the rumor that ICANN is soon going to be > buying a pair of Airbus 380's to call "Domain Name One" as they transport > its President? > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > !DSPAM:2676,4b75ca14177551595316302! > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Feb 14 08:56:25 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:26:25 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <84E8069D-7B16-4623-87AE-A135574F704C@datos-personales.org> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <84E8069D-7B16-4623-87AE-A135574F704C@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4B780109.80303@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Feb 14 09:04:18 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:04:18 +0000 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <4B780109.80303@gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <84E8069D-7B16-4623-87AE-A135574F704C@datos-personales.org> <4B780109.80303@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B7802E2.9050807@wzb.eu> I fully support Jeremy's suggestion to draft a statement. Who is the addressee? The UNSG? Why can we not draft something based on Wolfgang's very good comment? jeanette Ginger Paque wrote: > Jeremy, Katitza, Wolfgang, Yrjö, all: > > I would like to formally ask Katitza to propose a statement for > discussion, since she has wide knowledge and experience (as do others) > in this area. > > Kati, can you give us a starting point? > > Thanks. > Best, > Ginger > > > > Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> Greetings: >> >> Thanks for sharing your substantial thoughts on this overall process, >> Wolfgang/Yrjö. While IGC where discussing its statement, I have asked >> the list members to hear your opinions on this specific tension. I >> received only one very brief comment on the history and the tensions >> of the broader picture. Therefore, I would like to add a call to your >> call, that there is a need to share strategics and knowledge between >> everyone (old/young generations) and with other stakeholders, if we >> want to suceed! >> >> We should write a statement! >> >> >> On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Dear list >>> >>> I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises >>> its voice in this case. >>> >>> My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move >>> backwards, to cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to >>> withdraw from the principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to >>> get the Internet policy processes back under control of an >>> intergovernmental regime and to silence non-governmental >>> stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues and >>> decision making. >>> >>> This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the >>> Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and >>> was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet >>> Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) >>> approach". The acceptance of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in >>> their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved >>> by the constructive and substantial work the CS folks did during WSIS >>> I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society >>> Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over >>> officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing >>> Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the UN >>> Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF >>> as a "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It >>> emerged as the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because >>> governments were unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in >>> the understanding of many delegates was aimed to exclude >>> non-governmental stakeholders). >>> >>> However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of >>> "sharing power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in >>> 2006 and 2007 where governmental representatives were questioning the >>> presence of non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to >>> the transcripts of these meetings then you will discover that - as an >>> example - the Chinese delegate never uses the word >>> "multistakholderism" but always the term "multilateral" when it comes >>> to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a "used language" in the >>> text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva 2003 compromise >>> which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for international lawyers >>> it is very clear that the legal understanding of "multilateral" is >>> "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral convention" are only >>> governments. >>> >>> The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was >>> first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later >>> taken for granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of >>> Geneva", it was not the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN >>> people in New York they send you to the moon of you raise >>> "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop global policies. No >>> multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The so-called >>> "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy >>> development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the >>> archives and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New >>> York was ready to draft a resolution with a follow up. >>> >>> I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people >>> the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is >>> driven also by the political strategic aim to remove >>> "multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public >>> arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported by >>> some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the >>> secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency, formal >>> outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence >>> non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do >>> not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. >>> >>> The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also >>> hundreds of "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with >>> non-governmental stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - >>> the International Association for Media and Communication Research >>> (IAMCR), where I am an elected member of the International Council >>> and the liaison to ECOSOC - is officially recognized by ECOSOC since >>> the 1960s. But the only thing we can do is to send written statements >>> which are published before the meeting. You can speculate how many >>> ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes several hundred >>> pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to speak, >>> you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or >>> lobby) delegates. >>> >>> With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an >>> open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental >>> stakeholders. It re-opens the door for intergovernmental >>> horse-trading behind closed doors. It is like in the pre-WSIS time >>> when civil society (and private sector) were removed from the room >>> after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the >>> real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten >>> PrepComs to change this. >>> >>> This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled >>> by the planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is >>> led by three intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). >>> During the recent preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no >>> non-governmental stakeholder on the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy >>> Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs relationship with NGOs and the >>> involvement of the private sector in the ITU when he was asked about >>> his understanding of "multistakeholderism". >>> >>> During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a >>> CS Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked >>> officially to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental >>> mechanisms - which emerged as functioning units during the WSIS >>> process - more or less disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only >>> remaining functioning of "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the >>> UNCSTD. And this is now also under fire. >>> >>> I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders >>> and activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the >>> bigger political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. >>> What you need beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear >>> political strategy to find the places where you can make your >>> substantial arguments. You have permanently to reconsider your role >>> and self-understanding in the micro AND macro processes. And you have >>> to look for partners, both among "friendly governments" and private >>> sector institutions, which are sitting - to a certain degree - in >>> this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay united. >>> >>> And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet >>> Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the >>> Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the >>> implementation of the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 >>> strategy. >>> >>> Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this >>> exciting times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also >>> for the 2010s. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] >>> Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48 >>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, I think there should be a statement. >>> >>> After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations >>> that it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", >>> there were immediate reactions from other stateholders, many >>> (European) governments as well as from private sector >>> representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD would be cut out of >>> the process. >>> >>> >>> The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the >>> implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and >>> ECOSOC, and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted >>> the ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments >>> on the perfortmance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden >>> departure from this process on the question of the continuation of >>> the IGF. >>> >>> >>> As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement >>> last summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector >>> representatives have much better access and opportunity to influence >>> the proceedings at the CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the >>> ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak >>> about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. >>> >>> >>> Yrjö Länsipuro >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: jeremy at ciroap.org >>> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the >>> continuation of the IGF >>> >>> Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have >>> subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between >>> UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's >>> recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered, >>> prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final decision. >>> >>> UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the >>> Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly >>> to ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of >>> ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those recommendations first, >>> for consideration at its upcoming May meeting. >>> >>> The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader >>> range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, >>> including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for >>> civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's >>> recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD first. >>> >>> Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign >>> up now. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From katitza at datos-personales.org Sun Feb 14 09:04:09 2010 From: katitza at datos-personales.org (Katitza Rodriguez) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:04:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <4B780109.80303@gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <84E8069D-7B16-4623-87AE-A135574F704C@datos-personales.org> <4B780109.80303@gmail.com> Message-ID: Ginger: Thanks for your nice proposal. However, I cant accept it. I need to know more about this overall tensions and get more information from other colleagues and stakeholders before I form my own opinion. What we need is to continue the flow of discussion that Yrjo and Wolfgand started. I still do not like the idea to create an independent space out of UN.............. All the best, katitza On Feb 14, 2010, at 8:56 AM, Ginger Paque wrote: > Jeremy, Katitza, Wolfgang, Yrjö, all: > > I would like to formally ask Katitza to propose a statement for > discussion, since she has wide knowledge and experience (as do > others) in this area. > > Kati, can you give us a starting point? > > Thanks. > Best, > Ginger > > > > Katitza Rodriguez wrote: >> >> Greetings: >> >> Thanks for sharing your substantial thoughts on this overall >> process, Wolfgang/Yrjö. While IGC where discussing its statement, I >> have asked the list members to hear your opinions on this specific >> tension. I received only one very brief comment on the history and >> the tensions of the broader picture. Therefore, I would like to add >> a call to your call, that there is a need to share strategics and >> knowledge between everyone (old/young generations) and with other >> stakeholders, if we want to suceed! >> >> We should write a statement! >> >> >> On Feb 14, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: >> >>> Dear list >>> >>> I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC >>> raises its voice in this case. >>> >>> My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move >>> backwards, to cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and >>> to withdraw from the principle of "multistakeholderism". It is >>> aimed to get the Internet policy processes back under control of >>> an intergovernmental regime and to silence non-governmental >>> stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues and >>> decision making. >>> >>> This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the >>> Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS >>> and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet >>> Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) >>> approach". The acceptance of civil soceity as an "equal >>> parter" (in their specific role) was a big step for civil society. >>> This was paved by the constructive and substantial work the CS >>> folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the >>> WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 >>> and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted >>> it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to >>> the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance >>> (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a "multistakehoder discussion >>> platform" was the result of this. It emerged as the only concrete >>> result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were unable to >>> agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of >>> many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). >>> >>> However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of >>> "sharing power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in >>> 2006 and 2007 where governmental representatives were questioning >>> the presence of non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you >>> go to the transcripts of these meetings then you will discover >>> that - as an example - the Chinese delegate never uses the word >>> "multistakholderism" but always the term "multilateral" when it >>> comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a "used language" >>> in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva 2003 >>> compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for >>> international lawyers it is very clear that the legal >>> understanding of "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in >>> a "multilateral convention" are only governments. >>> >>> The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which >>> was first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was >>> later taken for granted (but never formalized). This was the >>> "spirit of Geneva", it was not the "spirit of New York". If you >>> talk to UN people in New York they send you to the moon of you >>> raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop global >>> policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The >>> so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in >>> UN policy development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - >>> disappeared in the archives and no single government in the UN >>> General Assembly in New York was ready to draft a resolution with >>> a follow up. >>> >>> I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some >>> people the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New >>> York is driven also by the political strategic aim to remove >>> "multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public >>> arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported >>> by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the >>> secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency, >>> formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence >>> non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do >>> not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. >>> >>> The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also >>> hundreds of "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non- >>> governmental stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - >>> the International Association for Media and Communication Research >>> (IAMCR), where I am an elected member of the International Council >>> and the liaison to ECOSOC - is officially recognized by ECOSOC >>> since the 1960s. But the only thing we can do is to send written >>> statements which are published before the meeting. You can >>> speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements >>> (sometimes several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, >>> you have no right to speak, you have even no right to access the >>> meeting room and to brief (or lobby) delegates. >>> >>> With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an >>> open and transparent debate among governmental and non- >>> governmental stakeholders. It re-opens the door for >>> intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. It is like in >>> the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were >>> removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening >>> sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took >>> three years and ten PrepComs to change this. >>> >>> This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is >>> paralleled by the planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This >>> "WSIS Forum" is led by three intergovernmental organisations (ITU, >>> UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent preparatory meeting in Geneva, >>> there was no non-governmental stakeholder on the podium. Houlin >>> Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs >>> relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector >>> in the ITU when he was asked about his understanding of >>> "multistakeholderism". >>> >>> During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and >>> a CS Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which >>> talked officially to the intergovernmental bureau. The non- >>> governmental mechanisms - which emerged as functioning units >>> during the WSIS process - more or less disappeared after Tunis >>> 2005. The only remaining functioning of "multistakholderism" was >>> the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under fire. >>> >>> I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG >>> leaders and activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not >>> forget the bigger political environment. In many places you are >>> not welcomed. What you need beyond a good substantial IG agenda is >>> also a clear political strategy to find the places where you can >>> make your substantial arguments. You have permanently to >>> reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND macro >>> processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly >>> governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - >>> to a certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And >>> please, stay united. >>> >>> And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet >>> Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the >>> Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the >>> implementation of the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 >>> strategy. >>> >>> Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this >>> exciting times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also >>> for the 2010s. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> >>> Wolfgang >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] >>> Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48 >>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, I think there should be a statement. >>> >>> After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations >>> that it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", >>> there were immediate reactions from other stateholders, many >>> (European) governments as well as from private sector >>> representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD would be cut out >>> of the process. >>> >>> >>> The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the >>> implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS >>> and ECOSOC, and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually >>> drafted the ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including >>> asessments on the perfortmance of the IGF. There is no reason for >>> a sudden departure from this process on the question of the >>> continuation of the IGF. >>> >>> >>> As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement >>> last summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector >>> representatives have much better access and opportunity to >>> influence the proceedings at the CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In >>> fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other >>> stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather >>> than just observing. >>> >>> >>> Yrjö Länsipuro >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> From: jeremy at ciroap.org >>> Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the >>> continuation of the IGF >>> >>> Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have >>> subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement >>> between UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's >>> recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be >>> delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a >>> final decision. >>> >>> UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the >>> Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations >>> directly to ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert >>> committee of ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those >>> recommendations first, for consideration at its upcoming May >>> meeting. >>> >>> The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader >>> range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, >>> including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for >>> civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary- >>> General's recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD >>> first. >>> >>> Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. >>> Sign up now. >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Sun Feb 14 09:06:12 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 09:36:12 -0430 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <4B7802E2.9050807@wzb.eu> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <84E8069D-7B16-4623-87AE-A135574F704C@datos-personales.org> <4B780109.80303@gmail.com> <4B7802E2.9050807@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B780354.6020104@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Feb 14 10:47:02 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:17:02 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs In-Reply-To: <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> Message-ID: Hello Avri Doria Thanks for your comment on this. 1. I compared the Executive Compensation at ICANN to that of Commercial Corporations to point out - in general - that some of ICANN's executives would get higher compensation than what ICANN offers to them, so these executives are not exactly taking advantage of ICANN. 2. When we have a lower compensation structure for non-profits it might save a few thousand dollars for that non-profit corporation, but this practice amounts to the non-profit taking advantage of those who opt to work for non-profits. 3. Lower compensations structures tend to cause at least a little bit of compromise in the corporation's ability to hire people with the right background and skills. A corporation such as ICANN is several times as important as the largest of commercial corporations, so the people hired to run ICANN should be of a caliber higher than that of the people hired by very large commercial corporations. 4. There are good natured people with the required qualification who would opt to work at low compensation levels, but it is not always necessary for all non-profit corporations to take advantage of the goodness of such people. While this is my rationale in general, I do NOT blindly endorse the compensation package offered to every employee of ICANN. In the case of the CEO's compensation for the year, I wouldn't worry about a $ 250,000 difference. It isn't much. Definitely not a significant sum of money for a corporation as large as ICANN at its current level of revenue flow. And not a significant difference to merit an embarrassing discussion in a public list or in an open forum. The committee of people who have agreed upon the compensation and benefits must have taken this decision after due deliberations in camera. Perhaps we should leave it at that. ( CEO's compensation at ICANN was close to $700,000 last year, if I am right. In that case $750,000 wouldn't be anything more than an inflation adjustment for the year) Our energies could instead be directed towards finding ways of enhancing ICANN's revenues in areas where it is due, where it does not become a burden for the user. That would be several times more rewarding than saving a few thousand dollars on Executive Compensation. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > You compare ICANN to profit making corporations. I do not think that is > appropriate. > > ICANN should be compared to an NGO as a non profit for the good of the > public corporation. By and large, it is not considered proper to pay CEOs > more then $500,000 in this environment - and when it happens, it is > controversial. Even American Red Cross only pays around 500,000 per > year. And we cannot say the work of ICANN is more complex or more important > than that. > > Of course JP Morgan's Partners HealthCare Systems in Boston takes home $2.7 > million, so if ICANN is more like the healthcare industry then like a > stewardship NGO, there is a ways to grow yet. > > a. > > > > On 13 Feb 2010, at 14:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > Hello Michael Gurstein > > > > I feel that $ 750, 000 + is perfectly alright. Given his background and > exposure, any business corporation should have been willing to 'poach' Rod > Beckstorm from wherever he was for well over a million dollars a year. So, > he is not overpaid by ICANN. > > > > This was one of the topics that I wrote about in Circle ID a year ago, > http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090106_icann_pay_more_increase_spending/omething that I wrote last year in Circle ID , if it is of any interest. > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 7:12 PM, michael gurstein > wrote: > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: Karl Auerbach > > Date: February 12, 2010 12:14:42 AM EST > > To: David Farber > > Subject: ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs President of US: > > $400,000 > > Reply-To: karl at cavebear.com > > > > > > ICANN has published, as it must as a tax exempt charitable corporation, > the > > salary it gifts unto its President: http://bit.ly/ametyG > > > > ICANN's president gets $750,000 plus a $195,000 spiff - $945,000, plus > > expenses. > > > > The amount is more than double the compensation of the President of the > > United Status: $400,000 plus $50,000 for expenses. > > > > The amount is about four times the compensation of the Secretary General > of > > the United Nations. > > > > Is there perhaps some truth to the rumor that ICANN is soon going to be > > buying a pair of Airbus 380's to call "Domain Name One" as they transport > > its President? > > > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- > > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now > > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ > > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com > > > > > > !DSPAM:2676,4b75ca14177551595316302! > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sun Feb 14 11:51:16 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:51:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hi I was pretty astonished that DESA apparently chose this path apparently without informing member governments of the UN. The Swiss (chair of CSTD) were really taken aback, other Europeans commented in a similar vein (Bertrand made a quite good statement). So the ground is well laid, and a statement could inter alia say we share the concerns already expressed by governments etc. Hopefully there are follow up inquiries happening now, including from concerned governments that either didn't get a chance to speak since this happened at the every end of the consultation, or that weren't even in the room (sigh...). On Feb 14, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. Probably it's not a big deal, but in retrospect I wish we had word smithed this more precisely (overlooked amidst the messy process of drafting the statement): > > Submission of the IGC in taking stock of the Sharm el Sheikh meeting of the IGF > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body such as the ITU. We left out something like "and based in Geneva and working in open dialogue with all stakeholders" or whatever, so it could be twisted/read as friendly to a move. Perhaps one time to be happy that if governments aren't carefully reading our statements... Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sun Feb 14 12:10:48 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:10:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: <4B7534C0.1050205@cis-india.org> References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> ,<4B7534C0.1050205@cis-india.org> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C9C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I guess I have trouble seeing this bromidical formulation as either positive or negative. This is the kind of unobjectionable slogan that adorns all kinds of industry and academic conferences. It is what it is, no need to get excited. Developing the Future? Together? I guess that theme won out over tough competition like: "Undermining the Future by Fighting for Power;" and the nihilst fave, "No Future." But I heard it had a tough time winning out over the first runner-up: "IGF 2010: Settling on the Lowest Common Denominator." --MM ________________________________________ From: Anja Kovacs [anja at cis-india.org] Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 6:00 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" This seems a very hopeful evolution. Could those who were part of the MAG meeting please tell us a little more about whether we do indeed have reason to be optimistic? And what are the main sessions that have been agreed on? Also, I would be interested in knowing whether the next round of OC and MAG meeting will be following the traditional format, or whether it will resemble the planning meeting of last September. The IGF's website seems to indicate the former, but it would be good to get confirmation. Thanks and best wishes, Anja On Thursday 11 February 2010 11:06 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > "Developing the Future Together " as a theme is broad enough to be a fusion > of several sub themes. It sounds very positive and looks forward. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: > >> Also for the advancement of Internet to the disadvangated communities. >> >> Best regards, >> Hakik >> >> >> At 03:41 PM 2/11/2010, Deirdre Williams wrote: >> >> I hope that's a good omen for the human rights/human aspects/human >> involvement issues? >> Deirdre >> >> On 11 February 2010 11:39, Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >> yes, it is so. parminder >> >> McTim wrote: >> >> >> Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next >> IGF? >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 典he 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 >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Feb 14 12:15:44 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:15:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs In-Reply-To: References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> Message-ID: On 14 Feb 2010, at 10:47, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > In the case of the CEO's compensation for the year, I wouldn't worry about a $ 250,000 difference. It isn't much. It could help to fund at least one application by some worthy applicant from a developing region maybe even seed money for a Foundation to help applicants from developing regions. Lots of things could be done with that 250K that you think is not so much. Maybe he will donate it to some good cause since it is not so much. > And not a significant difference to merit an embarrassing discussion in a public list or in an open forum. To whom is this discussion embarrassing? You, me? I am not embarrassed. If we don't talk about here, then where? If one sees excess, it needs to be pointed out. > There are good natured people with the required qualification who would opt to work at low compensation levels, but it is not always necessary for all non-profit corporations to take advantage of the goodness of such people. I disagree. We should find the people who are dedicated, know the field and are willing to take a reasonable wage. I accept the need to pay them a livable wage for LA, Brussels or even Palo Alto, and I accept that they have higher then normal expenses while doing their job - I even accept that they travel business class since that is the only way to travel and work at the same time. I do not accept that they need to be paid according to the standards of profit making industry or need TV studios in the Palo Alto office. > Our energies could instead be directed towards finding ways of enhancing ICANN's revenues in areas where it is due, where it does not become a burden for the user. That would be several times more rewarding than saving a few thousand dollars on Executive Compensation. It is a symbolic issue. One of the problem i see in IANN is that it persists in seeing itself through the lens of a profit making corporation. This excuses a whole lot of problems. And do not think that there is any will in ICANN for unburdening the poor user (the ICANN tax on domain names is not after all, the real burden on the user). E.g. there have been several calls over the years from setting up a foundation to help applicants who have less then LA style 'bundles of bucks' in order to make applications - and we have seen no movement in this area. Finding ways to help ICANN bring in more money will only result in higher wages for a greater number of employees (don't get me wrong jobs funding is a good thing - i am happy lots of people have work in ICANN). If a foundation were set up to channel the some of the bounty, including the windfall we will see from gTLD auctions, into a foundation geared toward development and especially developing a DNS industry in developing regions, instead of ploughing the money into excessive salaries, then ICANN would have a better reputation in the world and more importantly would be doing the right thing. I am not embarrassed to say such things. 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Feb 14 12:33:03 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 12:33:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] A 50-Watt Cellular Network In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C9E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> It's intriguing to see these small-scale technology initiatives and village phone looks great. However, I see references in both of your messages to decentralized business models, etc. I've searched the site and some of the blog posts quickly and see a lot of technical stuff but nothing about business or policy. Am I missing something, if so can you direct me to it? --MM ________________________________________ From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:49 PM To: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yehuda Katz Subject: Re: [governance] A 50-Watt Cellular Network Hi Siva. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > VNL's present focus appears to be cellular telephone services while Village > Telco's interests lie in Wifi / mesh networking. The mesh potato is designed to do telephony, can do data, but not optimised for it. > > If these disruptive technologies are used to provide Internet Access > solutions, there is a possibility of solutions beyond telecom dependent > networking. > indeed. > Village Telco's business model (of retaining profits for rural and informal > settlements rather than feeding a telco) is an indication that > telco-independent infrastructure and business models are feasible. > That's the plan. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From renate.bloem at gmail.com Sun Feb 14 12:51:22 2010 From: renate.bloem at gmail.com (Renate Bloem (Gmail)) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 18:51:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4b78381e.1c05d00a.266d.fffff5ca@mx.google.com> Dear Wolfgang and list members, As one who in the last two years has only observed this list from far, but has been involved and battled for civil society since day one in the WSIS and its outcomes, allow me to make a few observations: First: I do agree with Wolfgang that the "multistakeholderism" was the biggest conceptual achievement from WSIS. This was largely due to the extraordinary expertise that "stakeholders" other than governments brought into the process. It is also true, that there are trends to move us backward again, now that some of these governments have developed their own expertise. Second: Yes, there are different "spirits" in Geneva and New York. There is more openness in Geneva due to a long process of clear UN/NGO consultative arrangements, which NGOs have used to their utmost advantage. For example we have moved today from observers to "stakeholders" in the Human Rights Council, a direct subsidiary of the General Assembly (same level as the Security Council) to which in general we have no institutional arrangements (with speaking rights, interactive dialogue, written statements, official panel participation and, depending on governments, to negotiations of resolutions)But we also still complain of not getting enough time. In New York, NGOs have developed their own arrangements, e.g. the so called "Arias Consultations" with the Security Council or "Hearings" with the General Assembly. NGOs there also are often much more concerned about the role of the private sector than that of governments. Third, and what I want to say is: before taken next steps (and I do agree you should and write a statement in favour of the CSTD) to have a good look at some analysis writings of why the Cardoso report failed, e.g. here http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/22031890/The-Cardoso-Repo rt-on-the-UN-and-Civil-Society-Functionalism-Global-Corporatism-or-Global-De mocracy. When I used the term NGO, I mean, as in the article, all of civil society. Fourth and last: In rushing through the verbatim of last week's consultation, I also suggest to take up Finland's remarks about CSTD's role in negotiating the resolution on WSIS follow up for ECOSOC, also follow George Papadatos whether ECOSOC Bureau has already discussed this issue and under which item. BTW, if you have ECOSOC status, you can also speak, lobby and circulate language at ECOSOC Substantive Session in July. All the best, Renate ------- Renate Bloem Past President of CONGO Civicus UN Geneva Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 Mobile : +41763462310 renate.bloem at civicus.org renate.bloem at gmail.com CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa www.civicus.org -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: dimanche, 14. février 2010 12:05 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III Dear list I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises its voice in this case. My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues and decision making. This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial work the CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It emerged as the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007 where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a "used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva 2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral convention" are only governments. The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later taken for granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send you to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the archives and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to draft a resolution with a follow up. I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also hundreds of "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. You can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or lobby) delegates. With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU when he was asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism". During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked officially to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under fire. I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay united. And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the 2010s. Best wishes Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the Yes, I think there should be a statement. After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European) governments as well as from private sector representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD would be cut out of the process. The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and ECOSOC, and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the perfortmance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector representatives have much better access and opportunity to influence the proceedings at the CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. Yrjö Länsipuro ________________________________ From: jeremy at ciroap.org Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final decision. UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its upcoming May meeting. The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD first. Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? -- 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. ________________________________ Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 christopherwilkinson.eu Sun Feb 14 13:48:28 2010 From: mail at christopherwilkinson.eu (CW Mail) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2010 19:48:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <4b78381e.1c05d00a.266d.fffff5ca@mx.google.com> References: <4b78381e.1c05d00a.266d.fffff5ca@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <9CBE34D4-7753-4F75-9542-D655C3F108A8@christopherwilkinson.eu> The Cardoso report itself (86 pp.) is referenced at this page: http://www.un-ngls.org/orf/UNreform.htm CW On 14 Feb 2010, at 18:51, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Feb 14 14:45:36 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:45:36 +0500 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <701af9f71002141145l7b85cec8n48eb4dc8e33f02b7@mail.gmail.com> I feel that Wolfgang's and Yrjö's comments are of great concern as well as valid and seem to confirm my assumptions that I have been carrying since last year but always felt the idea to be too immature to be shared. I can share these thoughts through two things, one incident form last year and one from this year in Geneva. First, I was invited by UNCTAD as a CS member from a developing region to present on the second day of the 12th Session of the UN CSTD in 2009 to present on a panel about Mobile Technology, Social Networks and Convergence. While having the opportunity to participate through the duration of the CSTD, we encountered some interesting things when we desired to participate in resolutions concerning IG and sat in the Internet related resolution drafting meetings where a representative (I would like to keep her name and country private as a matter of their privacy) objected to the presence of CS members in the room and stating clearly that CS members have no role in the drafting process as they are outsiders. The moderator/chair of the drafting activity somehow managed to cool her objections allowing only observer status to CS members to be present in that meeting. The government stakeholders didn't like our presence but a developing country government stakeholder managed to cool down things and keep us sitting in observer status. Within the main sessions, when comments were invited, I had my name card display for allowance to speak being a participant in the audience only to find out that I could not speak despite being officially invited to be present that really confused me. Maybe I was only perceived to be an observer or guest while formally presenting to the main session and receiving a thank you letter from New York office for stimulating important discussions during the session. Okay, I also believe since the the handful few CS organizations that were allowed to take the floor could only share S&T/ICT/Internet related examples and had no possible say within the resolution drafting processes however this may only be my humble observation. Now coming to the second point about the Open Consultation, again keeping the sources private for privacy purposes, there is a definitive indication of fear amongst certain stakeholder groups other than the IGC that IGF may be transformed into a complete Intergovernmental process while being transferred to New York. This wasn't news for me as I had heard a similar comment from a high UN official that IGF may be leading towards becoming an intergovernmental process and thus speculations from last year and the statement by ECOSOC during the OC makes it considerably true. There is a great tension amongst a stakeholder group but is stuck in the tug of war between certain governments. This has turned into an intergovernmental political conflict to be precise and yes it is actually happening to some degree. Within our recent statement we can feel that somehow, it lacked to stress the importance of keeping the IGF in Geneva "and I mean precise mentioning of the phrase - in Geneva", we left out the regional specifics and therefore it is necessary to release an official statement from IGC to once again re-assert our group's interests in keeping the IGF under the current process in Geneva. This is also an important aspect of why most MAG members were concerned that why the experimentation or innovation. I personally feel that If the political management process is lost with the elimination of the MAG and no need for a MAG is proven then the process is open for accumulation by an intergovernmental process similar to the CSTD or the process that you see displayed by the ITU. Somehow we overlooked this in our statement drafting activity as well as our discussions over the MAG and MAG+ meetings issue. I still feel a bit immature to be discussing the political aspects of MAG's existence but feel that the MAG is Civil Society's advantage in the IGF multistakeholder process that may have witnessed some manipulation in the past few weeks that led to some of this uncertainty to surface. As a member of CS from a developing country, I am now feeling very concerned! We have to be very clear here and I am still not sure if I am interpreting this in the proper language phrasing and am requesting a humble apology beforehand. My question is that does the IGC or certain factors affecting us want us to lose our group's political strength in the IGF in the form of MAG and let the process be turned over to the Intergovernmental process in New York or do we want to stand our ground and protect our political standing by strengthening our MAG position and as IGC forward both our concerns and assert the stakeholder's interest to keep IGF under Geneva? My other evident concern is that if this becomes an Intergovernmental process as being feared by the various stakeholders, what will the face of IGF be like? Your thoughts are required please? -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:04 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" wrote: > Dear list > > I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises its voice in this case. > > My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues and decision making. > > This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial work the CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).  The launch of the IGF as a "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It emerged as the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). > > However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007 where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a "used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva 2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral convention" are only governments. > > The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later taken for granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send you to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN  Security Council!!! The so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy development - once initiated by Kofi  Annan - disappeared in the archives and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to draft a resolution with a follow up. > > I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments (and unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. > > The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also hundreds of "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. You can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or lobby) delegates. > > With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > > This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU when he was asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism". > > During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS Content&Themes Group)  and a private Sector Office which talked officially to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under fire. > > I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay united. > > And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. > > Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the 2010s. > > Best wishes > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] > Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the > > > > Yes, I think there should be a statement. > > After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European) governments as well as from private sector representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD would be cut out of the process. > > > The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and ECOSOC, and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the  ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the perfortmance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > > > As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last summer) I can confirm  that civil society and private sector representatives have much better access and opportunity to influence the proceedings at the CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. > > > Yrjö Länsipuro > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: jeremy at ciroap.org > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF > > Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it to make a final decision. > > UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to ECOSOC.  The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its upcoming May meeting. > > The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those entities that were accredited at WSIS.  So for civil society, if we wish to give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that they go to the CSTD first. > > Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? > > > -- > 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. > > > > ________________________________ > > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Feb 15 02:13:05 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 12:13:05 +0500 Subject: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C9C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B7424B4.9070405@itforchange.net> <7.0.1.0.1.20100211154552.01bf7fb0@hakik.org> <4B7534C0.1050205@cis-india.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C9C@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <701af9f71002142313h2e7a934ax1c9aae3795fee490@mail.gmail.com> You know how other themes that carry access, affordability and accountability as the real future requirement will never see the daylight ;o) 2010/2/14 Milton L Mueller : > I guess I have trouble seeing this bromidical formulation as either positive or negative. This is the kind of unobjectionable slogan that adorns all kinds of industry and academic conferences. It is what it is, no need to get excited. > > Developing the Future? Together? I guess that theme won out over tough competition like: "Undermining the Future by Fighting for Power;" and the nihilst fave, "No Future." But I heard it had a tough time winning out over the first runner-up: "IGF 2010: Settling on the Lowest Common Denominator." > > --MM > ________________________________________ > From: Anja Kovacs [anja at cis-india.org] > Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 6:00 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] "IGF2010: Developing the Future Together" > > This seems a very hopeful evolution. Could those who were part of the > MAG meeting please tell us a little more about whether we do indeed have > reason to be optimistic? And what are the main sessions that have been > agreed on? > > Also, I would be interested in knowing whether the next round of OC and > MAG meeting will be following the traditional format, or whether it will > resemble the planning meeting of last September.  The IGF's website > seems to indicate the former, but it would be good to get confirmation. > > Thanks and best wishes, > Anja > > On Thursday 11 February 2010 11:06 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> "Developing the Future Together " as a theme is broad enough to be a fusion >> of several sub themes. It sounds very positive and looks forward. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Hakikur Rahman wrote: >> >>>  Also for the advancement of Internet to the disadvangated communities. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Hakik >>> >>> >>> At 03:41 PM 2/11/2010, Deirdre Williams wrote: >>> >>> I hope that's a good omen for the human rights/human aspects/human >>> involvement issues? >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 11 February 2010 11:39, Parminder < parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: >>>  yes, it is so. parminder >>> >>> McTim wrote: >>> >>> >>> Can anyone in Geneva confirm this as the theme for the next >>> IGF? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 典he 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 >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Feb 15 04:55:03 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:55:03 +0500 Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <701af9f71002150155m4a2f54bcre2a0355d659e8781@mail.gmail.com> Yes, I too support the notion for a statement! On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > Yes, I think there should be a statement. > After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it > was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were > immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European) governments as > well as from private sector representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD > would be cut out of the process. > The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the > implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and ECOSOC, > and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the  ECOSOC > resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the perfortmance > of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on > the question of the continuation of the IGF. > As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last > summer) I can confirm  that civil society and private sector representatives > have much better access and opportunity to influence the proceedings at the > CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened > CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, > rather than just observing. > Yrjö Länsipuro > > > ________________________________ > From: jeremy at ciroap.org > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the > continuation of the IGF > > Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have subsequently > read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the CSTD > over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation of > the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it > to make a final decision. > UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the > Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to > ECOSOC.  The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought > that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its > upcoming May meeting. > The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of > civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those > entities that were accredited at WSIS.  So for civil society, if we wish to > give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that > they go to the CSTD first. > Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? > > -- > > 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. > > -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa Internet Governance Advisor ICT4D Social Practitioner & Researcher Member Multistakeholder Advisory Group (IGF) Member Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa MAG Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATVDW1tDZzA ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Feb 15 06:32:38 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 09:32:38 -0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus In-Reply-To: References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> Message-ID: <4B7930D6.8000401@cafonso.ca> With all due respect, Muthusamy, we are talking about US dollars here, not rupees or yen or... the whole amount is extremely high -- remember, ICANN is a non-profit organization, not a for-profit corporation!! And 250K US dollars has a tremendous value for,eg, ICANN creating a more decent fund to help increase Southern participation, etc etc. Like many for-profit corporations, Mr Beckstrom earns nearly two times as much as his closest aides (Mr Brent, Mr Jeffrey, and Mr Pritz), who in their turn earn two times as much as the chief financial officer (Mr Wilson). Now I understand why Mr Beckstrom always looks so happy :) --c.a. Avri Doria wrote: > On 14 Feb 2010, at 10:47, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> In the case of the CEO's compensation for the year, I wouldn't worry about a $ 250,000 difference. It isn't much. > > It could help to fund at least one application by some worthy applicant from a developing region maybe even seed money for a Foundation to help applicants from developing regions. Lots of things could be done with that 250K that you think is not so much. Maybe he will donate it to some good cause since it is not so much. > >> And not a significant difference to merit an embarrassing discussion in a public list or in an open forum. > > To whom is this discussion embarrassing? You, me? I am not embarrassed. If we don't talk about here, then where? If one sees excess, it needs to be pointed out. > >> There are good natured people with the required qualification who would opt to work at low compensation levels, but it is not always necessary for all non-profit corporations to take advantage of the goodness of such people. > > I disagree. We should find the people who are dedicated, know the field and are willing to take a reasonable wage. I accept the need to pay them a livable wage for LA, Brussels or even Palo Alto, and I accept that they have higher then normal expenses while doing their job - I even accept that they travel business class since that is the only way to travel and work at the same time. I do not accept that they need to be paid according to the standards of profit making industry or need TV studios in the Palo Alto office. > >> Our energies could instead be directed towards finding ways of enhancing ICANN's revenues in areas where it is due, where it does not become a burden for the user. That would be several times more rewarding than saving a few thousand dollars on Executive Compensation. > > It is a symbolic issue. One of the problem i see in IANN is that it persists in seeing itself through the lens of a profit making corporation. This excuses a whole lot of problems. > > And do not think that there is any will in ICANN for unburdening the poor user (the ICANN tax on domain names is not after all, the real burden on the user). E.g. there have been several calls over the years from setting up a foundation to help applicants who have less then LA style 'bundles of bucks' in order to make applications - and we have seen no movement in this area. Finding ways to help ICANN bring in more money will only result in higher wages for a greater number of employees (don't get me wrong jobs funding is a good thing - i am happy lots of people have work in ICANN). If a foundation were set up to channel the some of the bounty, including the windfall we will see from gTLD auctions, into a foundation geared toward development and especially developing a DNS industry in developing regions, instead of ploughing the money into excessive salaries, then ICANN would have a better reputation in the world and more importantly would be doing the right thing. > > I am not embarrassed to say such things. > > 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 -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Mon Feb 15 07:58:30 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 18:28:30 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <701af9f71002141145l7b85cec8n48eb4dc8e33f02b7@mail.gmail.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <701af9f71002141145l7b85cec8n48eb4dc8e33f02b7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B7944F6.6030304@itforchange.net> Hi All I agree that we should call for IGF review to be taken up at CSTD level onwards, which in any case then goes to the ECOSOC and then to the UN's general assembly, which as per the TA would make the final resolution on the issue. We should develop a statement on this issue addressed to UN Secretary General's offce and of Under Secretary Sha's office. I do not see any justification for the the report from formal consultations with IGF participants not to be shared with CSTD. There looks to be elements of avoidable intrigue in it. Lets see what happens since CSTD chairman and some government reps asked for this report to be tabled with CSTD, which is in charge of WSIS follow-up. Separately, it may be pertinent to note in this regard that even without the UN under-secretary general's report CSTD can make observation on review of IGF, and on the need of its continuation or not. Two other things come to my mind which connect to the present debate. One; it is perhaps ironical that when CSTD was developing its own mandate on WSIS follow up, developed countries opposed IGF's inclusion in definition of WSIS follow up that CSTD was to address. It were a few developing countries and a few CS reps from developing countries who weighed on the side of including IGF in CSTD's remit, whereby IGF was included in CSTD's remit of review and follow up. Where would we be at present if the views of developed countries were accepted at that time? The above underscores the need to ensure enough institutional mechanisms, and institutional depth, around spaces concerned with public policies. Fouad is very much on the point to relate this issue to that of continuation or not of MAG, or even of weakening or strengthening the MAG, which is the second point I wanted to make. Do those who advocate either dispensing with MAG (the multistakeholder space we got) or weakening it not realize that any such thing will only shift more decision making power to the UN's bureaucracy? How do they defend their formulations on MAG with the present call for seeking CSTD review of IGF before the deeper and more obscure UN system takes cognizance of it? Parminder Fouad Bajwa wrote: > I feel that Wolfgang's and Yrjö's comments are of great concern as > well as valid and seem to confirm my assumptions that I have been > carrying since last year but always felt the idea to be too immature > to be shared. I can share these thoughts through two things, one > incident form last year and one from this year in Geneva. > > First, I was invited by UNCTAD as a CS member from a developing region > to present on the second day of the 12th Session of the UN CSTD in > 2009 to present on a panel about Mobile Technology, Social Networks > and Convergence. While having the opportunity to participate through > the duration of the CSTD, we encountered some interesting things when > we desired to participate in resolutions concerning IG and sat in the > Internet related resolution drafting meetings where a representative > (I would like to keep her name and country private as a matter of > their privacy) objected to the presence of CS members in the room and > stating clearly that CS members have no role in the drafting process > as they are outsiders. The moderator/chair of the drafting activity > somehow managed to cool her objections allowing only observer status > to CS members to be present in that meeting. The government > stakeholders didn't like our presence but a developing country > government stakeholder managed to cool down things and keep us sitting > in observer status. > > Within the main sessions, when comments were invited, I had my name > card display for allowance to speak being a participant in the > audience only to find out that I could not speak despite being > officially invited to be present that really confused me. Maybe I was > only perceived to be an observer or guest while formally presenting to > the main session and receiving a thank you letter from New York office > for stimulating important discussions during the session. Okay, I also > believe since the the handful few CS organizations that were allowed > to take the floor could only share S&T/ICT/Internet related examples > and had no possible say within the resolution drafting processes > however this may only be my humble observation. > > Now coming to the second point about the Open Consultation, again > keeping the sources private for privacy purposes, there is a > definitive indication of fear amongst certain stakeholder groups other > than the IGC that IGF may be transformed into a complete > Intergovernmental process while being transferred to New York. This > wasn't news for me as I had heard a similar comment from a high UN > official that IGF may be leading towards becoming an intergovernmental > process and thus speculations from last year and the statement by > ECOSOC during the OC makes it considerably true. There is a great > tension amongst a stakeholder group but is stuck in the tug of war > between certain governments. This has turned into an intergovernmental > political conflict to be precise and yes it is actually happening to > some degree. > > Within our recent statement we can feel that somehow, it lacked to > stress the importance of keeping the IGF in Geneva "and I mean precise > mentioning of the phrase - in Geneva", we left out the regional > specifics and therefore it is necessary to release an official > statement from IGC to once again re-assert our group's interests in > keeping the IGF under the current process in Geneva. > > This is also an important aspect of why most MAG members were > concerned that why the experimentation or innovation. I personally > feel that If the political management process is lost with the > elimination of the MAG and no need for a MAG is proven then the > process is open for accumulation by an intergovernmental process > similar to the CSTD or the process that you see displayed by the ITU. > Somehow we overlooked this in our statement drafting activity as well > as our discussions over the MAG and MAG+ meetings issue. I still feel > a bit immature to be discussing the political aspects of MAG's > existence but feel that the MAG is Civil Society's advantage in the > IGF multistakeholder process that may have witnessed some manipulation > in the past few weeks that led to some of this uncertainty to surface. > As a member of CS from a developing country, I am now feeling very > concerned! > > We have to be very clear here and I am still not sure if I am > interpreting this in the proper language phrasing and am requesting a > humble apology beforehand. My question is that does the IGC or certain > factors affecting us want us to lose our group's political strength in > the IGF in the form of MAG and let the process be turned over to the > Intergovernmental process in New York or do we want to stand our > ground and protect our political standing by strengthening our MAG > position and as IGC forward both our concerns and assert the > stakeholder's interest to keep IGF under Geneva? > > My other evident concern is that if this becomes an Intergovernmental > process as being feared by the various stakeholders, what will the > face of IGF be like? Your thoughts are required please? > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Feb 15 09:32:14 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 17:32:14 +0300 Subject: [governance] A 50-Watt Cellular Network In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C9E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6C9E@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Here are some links Milton; http://www.ictworks.org/news/2009/10/14/village-telco-business-model http://www.shuttleworthfoundation.org/our-work/telecommunications/projects/village-telco http://www.dabba.co.za/ is doing something similar in SA right now, and will roll out the Mesh Potato as a true Village Telco once past beta. David Rowe just informed us he is doing a 500 node mesh in Dili, East Timor. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > It's intriguing to see these small-scale technology initiatives and village phone looks great. However, I see references in both of your messages to decentralized business models, etc. I've searched the site and some of the blog posts quickly and see a lot of technical stuff but nothing about business or policy. Am I missing something, if so can you direct me to it? > --MM > > ________________________________________ > From: McTim [dogwallah at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 2:49 PM > To: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yehuda Katz > Subject: Re: [governance] A 50-Watt Cellular Network > > Hi Siva. > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:20 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > wrote: >> VNL's present focus appears to be cellular telephone services while Village >> Telco's interests lie in Wifi / mesh networking. > > The mesh potato is designed to do telephony, can do data, but not > optimised for it. > > > >> >> If these disruptive technologies are used to provide Internet Access >> solutions, there is a possibility of solutions beyond telecom dependent >> networking. >> > > indeed. > >> Village Telco's business model (of retaining profits for rural and informal >> settlements rather than feeding a telco) is an indication that >> telco-independent infrastructure and business models are feasible. >> > > That's the plan. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A > route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Mon Feb 15 10:56:36 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 10:56:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <4B7944F6.6030304@itforchange.net> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <701af9f71002141145l7b85cec8n48eb4dc8e33f02b7@mail.gmail.com>,<4B7944F6.6030304@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCA2@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I agree with Parminder on all points; and now my 2 or 3 cents. IGC should of course report to CSTD its views, by May, again, on IGF futures; as well as direct with ECOSOC and friendly GA governments. Re MAG or no MAG, its loss would be a big symbolic step back. I expect CS would wander off to a new venue without it, frankly. Which might be fine by some usual suspect non-fans of IGF. Re Geneva or New York, arguments could be made either way. NY is further from ITU for example, while closer to SecGen. But another Internet governance institution moving to US may not be welcomed by some. Even if handy for us New Yorkers : ). But odds are CS has limited clout on this locational issue, and is best served by focusing on Parminder's and Wolfgang's points - we are at yet another tipping point. Lee ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 7:58 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Fouad Bajwa Cc: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"; Yrjö Länsipuro Subject: Re: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III Hi All I agree that we should call for IGF review to be taken up at CSTD level onwards, which in any case then goes to the ECOSOC and then to the UN's general assembly, which as per the TA would make the final resolution on the issue. We should develop a statement on this issue addressed to UN Secretary General's offce and of Under Secretary Sha's office. I do not see any justification for the the report from formal consultations with IGF participants not to be shared with CSTD. There looks to be elements of avoidable intrigue in it. Lets see what happens since CSTD chairman and some government reps asked for this report to be tabled with CSTD, which is in charge of WSIS follow-up. Separately, it may be pertinent to note in this regard that even without the UN under-secretary general's report CSTD can make observation on review of IGF, and on the need of its continuation or not. Two other things come to my mind which connect to the present debate. One; it is perhaps ironical that when CSTD was developing its own mandate on WSIS follow up, developed countries opposed IGF's inclusion in definition of WSIS follow up that CSTD was to address. It were a few developing countries and a few CS reps from developing countries who weighed on the side of including IGF in CSTD's remit, whereby IGF was included in CSTD's remit of review and follow up. Where would we be at present if the views of developed countries were accepted at that time? The above underscores the need to ensure enough institutional mechanisms, and institutional depth, around spaces concerned with public policies. Fouad is very much on the point to relate this issue to that of continuation or not of MAG, or even of weakening or strengthening the MAG, which is the second point I wanted to make. Do those who advocate either dispensing with MAG (the multistakeholder space we got) or weakening it not realize that any such thing will only shift more decision making power to the UN's bureaucracy? How do they defend their formulations on MAG with the present call for seeking CSTD review of IGF before the deeper and more obscure UN system takes cognizance of it? Parminder Fouad Bajwa wrote: I feel that Wolfgang's and Yrjö's comments are of great concern as well as valid and seem to confirm my assumptions that I have been carrying since last year but always felt the idea to be too immature to be shared. I can share these thoughts through two things, one incident form last year and one from this year in Geneva. First, I was invited by UNCTAD as a CS member from a developing region to present on the second day of the 12th Session of the UN CSTD in 2009 to present on a panel about Mobile Technology, Social Networks and Convergence. While having the opportunity to participate through the duration of the CSTD, we encountered some interesting things when we desired to participate in resolutions concerning IG and sat in the Internet related resolution drafting meetings where a representative (I would like to keep her name and country private as a matter of their privacy) objected to the presence of CS members in the room and stating clearly that CS members have no role in the drafting process as they are outsiders. The moderator/chair of the drafting activity somehow managed to cool her objections allowing only observer status to CS members to be present in that meeting. The government stakeholders didn't like our presence but a developing country government stakeholder managed to cool down things and keep us sitting in observer status. Within the main sessions, when comments were invited, I had my name card display for allowance to speak being a participant in the audience only to find out that I could not speak despite being officially invited to be present that really confused me. Maybe I was only perceived to be an observer or guest while formally presenting to the main session and receiving a thank you letter from New York office for stimulating important discussions during the session. Okay, I also believe since the the handful few CS organizations that were allowed to take the floor could only share S&T/ICT/Internet related examples and had no possible say within the resolution drafting processes however this may only be my humble observation. Now coming to the second point about the Open Consultation, again keeping the sources private for privacy purposes, there is a definitive indication of fear amongst certain stakeholder groups other than the IGC that IGF may be transformed into a complete Intergovernmental process while being transferred to New York. This wasn't news for me as I had heard a similar comment from a high UN official that IGF may be leading towards becoming an intergovernmental process and thus speculations from last year and the statement by ECOSOC during the OC makes it considerably true. There is a great tension amongst a stakeholder group but is stuck in the tug of war between certain governments. This has turned into an intergovernmental political conflict to be precise and yes it is actually happening to some degree. Within our recent statement we can feel that somehow, it lacked to stress the importance of keeping the IGF in Geneva "and I mean precise mentioning of the phrase - in Geneva", we left out the regional specifics and therefore it is necessary to release an official statement from IGC to once again re-assert our group's interests in keeping the IGF under the current process in Geneva. This is also an important aspect of why most MAG members were concerned that why the experimentation or innovation. I personally feel that If the political management process is lost with the elimination of the MAG and no need for a MAG is proven then the process is open for accumulation by an intergovernmental process similar to the CSTD or the process that you see displayed by the ITU. Somehow we overlooked this in our statement drafting activity as well as our discussions over the MAG and MAG+ meetings issue. I still feel a bit immature to be discussing the political aspects of MAG's existence but feel that the MAG is Civil Society's advantage in the IGF multistakeholder process that may have witnessed some manipulation in the past few weeks that led to some of this uncertainty to surface. As a member of CS from a developing country, I am now feeling very concerned! We have to be very clear here and I am still not sure if I am interpreting this in the proper language phrasing and am requesting a humble apology beforehand. My question is that does the IGC or certain factors affecting us want us to lose our group's political strength in the IGF in the form of MAG and let the process be turned over to the Intergovernmental process in New York or do we want to stand our ground and protect our political standing by strengthening our MAG position and as IGC forward both our concerns and assert the stakeholder's interest to keep IGF under Geneva? My other evident concern is that if this becomes an Intergovernmental process as being feared by the various stakeholders, what will the face of IGF be like? Your thoughts are required please? ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Feb 15 19:07:27 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:07:27 +0500 Subject: [governance] Web of silence? - Article in Daily Dawn Pakistan by Huma Yusuf Message-ID: <701af9f71002151607y92a5ce0wbfb7aae05938fa83@mail.gmail.com> Sharing an article that appeared in the Pakistani Newspaper Daily Dawn for information sharing purposes only of an existing article of interest to community members. Web of silence? By Huma Yusuf Sunday, 14 Feb, 2010 Source: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/12-web-of-silence-420--bi-07 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 16 05:13:26 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:13:26 +0800 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD References: Message-ID: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> As agreed, please find below a draft letter to the UNSG (United Nations Secretary-General) expressing our strong concern about the usurpation of the role of the civil society-friendly CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) in reviewing the conclusions of the UNSG on the continuation of the IGF. This is based closely on Wolfgang's post to the list that followed on from mine and Yrjö's. This is just a first draft, and I might have missed some recent discussions as I'm composing this in the air between the US and Europe. Dear Sir, As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to those of several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation meeting. This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result of this. Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this role was to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later taken for granted (though never formalized). It allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs, and private sector representatives, to participate as active observers. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. In contrast, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, all they can do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. They have no right to negotiate, no right to speak, and no right to access the meeting room to brief (or lobby) delegates. Moreover, the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. In other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by non-governmental stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder institution. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Thank you for your consideration. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Tue Feb 16 05:52:02 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:52:02 +0000 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> References: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <20100216105246.1AB5A90F86@npogroups.org> Paragraph four may elaborated further including a few success cases that have been initiated by civil societies in several countries aiming at WSIS missions. They have elevated Internet governance platforms in those countries. Further progress of them requires substantive support in terms of policy issues and state level patronization. These will roll out the process of inclusive society to achieve the target set at several IGF sessions and will open the door to continue as such in future. Best regards, Hakikur Rahman At 10:13 16-02-2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >As agreed, please find below a draft letter to >the UNSG (United Nations Secretary-General) >expressing our strong concern about the >usurpation of the role of the civil >society-friendly CSTD (Commission on Science and >Technology for Development) in reviewing the >conclusions of the UNSG on the continuation of >the IGF. This is based closely on Wolfgang's >post to the list that followed on from mine and >Yrjö's. This is just a first draft, and I might >have missed some recent discussions as I'm >composing this in the air between the US and Europe. > >Dear Sir, > >As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance >Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder >process, the Civil Society Internet Governance >Caucus writes to express a concern about what we >see as a potential weakening of that process, in >the revelation at the last IGF open consultation >meeting on 10 February that your recommendations >on the continuation of the IGF will not be >reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and >Technology for Development). In raising this >concern, we are joining our voice to those of >several governments who spoke to similar effect >at that open consultation meeting. > >This recognition of the principle of >"multistakeholderism" in the Tunis Agenda 2005 >was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS >and was in particular accepted as a guiding >principle for Internet Governance in contrast to >a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) >approach". The acceptance of civil society as an >"equal parter" (in their specific role) was a >big step for civil society. This was paved by >the constructive and substantial work the civil >society representatives did during WSIS I and >II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil >Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in >December 2003 and handed over officially to the >Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing >Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to >the results of the UN Working Group on Internet >Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a >"multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result of this. > >Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and >review of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF, >was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this >role was to be managed using a multi-stakeholder >approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The >"opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated >procedure which was first (in 2006) established >as a preliminary exception, but was later taken >for granted (though never formalized). It >allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs, and private >sector representatives, to participate as active >observers. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that >opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about >"participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. > >With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted >the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS >follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments >on the performance of the IGF. There is no >reason for a sudden departure from this process >on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > >In contrast, ECOSOC itself is not a >multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst ECOSOC >has accredited NGOs, all they can do is to send >written statements which are published before >the meeting. They have no right to negotiate, no >right to speak, and no right to access the >meeting room to brief (or lobby) >delegates. Moreover, the private sector has no >representation within ECOSOC at all. > >In other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC >means to silence an open and transparent debate >among governmental and non-governmental >stakeholders. It would mark a return to the >pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the >private sector) were removed from the room after >the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions >ended and the real debate started in June 2002. >It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > >We request you to take steps to redress this >anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on >the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for >consideration at its May meeting, where they >will be open for review by non-governmental >stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique >multi-stakeholder institution. We would also >like to take this opportunity to reiterate our >support for the continuation of the IGF as a >multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of >Internet-related public policy issues, located >in Geneva, with an independent budget and a >Secretariat under contract with the United >Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > >Thank you for your consideration. > >-- > >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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 05:55:36 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:55:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Google's fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) networks Message-ID: Dear all Is this not going to atract anti-trust/ cross-ownership attention? Google has announced plans to build a number of trial fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) networks in communities across the US, claiming that it will provide broadband at downlink speeds of up to 1Gbps. James Kelly, project manager on Google's infrastructure team, said: ‘We are doing this because we want to experiment with new ways to make the web better and faster for everyone, allowing new applications that aren't possible today. We are going to try out new ways to build and operate fibre networks and share what we learn with the world.’ http://telecomafrica.blogspot.com/2010/02/google-to-build-fibre-optic-network.html -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Tue Feb 16 07:26:29 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?Windows-1252?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:26:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <20100216105249.6F7309100B@npogroups.org> References: ,<0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org>,<20100216105249.6F7309100B@npogroups.org> Message-ID: Thank you, Jeremy, for the first draft. I think than in the 3rd para, we could refer to the relevant decisions by the ECOSOC that actually formalized the participation of other stakeholders in the work of the CSTD, e g.: Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and assessment work tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. Best, Yrjö Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:52:02 +0000 To: jeremy at ciroap.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org From: email at hakik.org Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD Paragraph four may elaborated further including a few success cases that have been initiated by civil societies in several countries aiming at WSIS missions. They have elevated Internet governance platforms in those countries. Further progress of them requires substantive support in terms of policy issues and state level patronization. These will roll out the process of inclusive society to achieve the target set at several IGF sessions and will open the door to continue as such in future. Best regards, Hakikur Rahman At 10:13 16-02-2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: As agreed, please find below a draft letter to the UNSG (United Nations Secretary-General) expressing our strong concern about the usurpation of the role of the civil society-friendly CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) in reviewing the conclusions of the UNSG on the continuation of the IGF. This is based closely on Wolfgang's post to the list that followed on from mine and Yrjö's. This is just a first draft, and I might have missed some recent discussions as I'm composing this in the air between the US and Europe. Dear Sir, As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to those of several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation meeting. This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result of this. Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this role was to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later taken for granted (though never formalized). It allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs, and private sector representatives, to participate as active observers. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. In contrast, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, all they can do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. They have no right to negotiate, no right to speak, and no right to access the meeting room to brief (or lobby) delegates. Moreover, the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. In other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by non-governmental stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder institution. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Thank you for your consideration. -- 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 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 08:03:49 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 09:03:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> <20100216105249.6F7309100B@npogroups.org> Message-ID: Make sure then that para 3 is edited to remove (though never formalised), possibly adding a reference to formalisation process. Deirdre On 16 February 2010 08:26, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > Thank you, Jeremy, for the first draft. > > I think than in the 3rd para, we could refer to the relevant decisions by > the ECOSOC that actually formalized the participation of other stakeholders > in the work of the CSTD, e g.: > > Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including > the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and assessment work > tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this > purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder > approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other > stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 > and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, > academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to > participate in the work of the CSTD. > > Best, > > Yrjö > > > ------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:52:02 +0000 > To: jeremy at ciroap.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > From: email at hakik.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD > > > Paragraph four may elaborated further including a few success cases that > have been initiated by civil societies in several countries aiming at WSIS > missions. They have elevated Internet governance platforms in those > countries. Further progress of them requires substantive support in terms of > policy issues and state level patronization. These will roll out the process > of inclusive society to achieve the target set at several IGF sessions and > will open the door to continue as such in future. > > Best regards, > Hakikur Rahman > > > At 10:13 16-02-2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > As agreed, please find below a draft letter to the UNSG (United Nations > Secretary-General) expressing our strong concern about the usurpation of the > role of the civil society-friendly CSTD (Commission on Science and > Technology for Development) in reviewing the conclusions of the UNSG on the > continuation of the IGF. This is based closely on Wolfgang's post to the > list that followed on from mine and Yrjö's. This is just a first draft, and > I might have missed some recent discussions as I'm composing this in the air > between the US and Europe. > > Dear Sir, > > As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique > multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of > that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation meeting on > 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will > not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for > Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to those of > several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation > meeting. > > This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis > Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in > particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in > contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance > of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big > step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial > work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented > in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in > December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who > accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to > the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The > launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result > of this. > > Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS outcomes, > including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this role was > to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105). > The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first > (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later taken for > granted (though never formalized). It allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs, > and private sector representatives, to participate as active observers. In > fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak > about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. > > With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC > resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on > the performance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from > this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > > In contrast, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst > ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, all they can do is to send written statements > which are published before the meeting. They have no right to negotiate, no > right to speak, and no right to access the meeting room to brief (or lobby) > delegates. Moreover, the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC > at all. > > In other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and > transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It > would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private > sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the > opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took > three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > > We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your > recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration > at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by non-governmental > stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder > institution. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our > support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with > an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United > Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > > Thank you for your consideration. > > -- > > *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 > > > ------------------------------ > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up > now. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Feb 16 08:17:05 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:17:05 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> <20100216105249.6F7309100B@npogroups.org> Message-ID: <4B7A9AD1.5020708@cafonso.ca> I second Deirdre (I would also remove "very complicated" in the same para). Also, I would try to briefly stress how the pluralist approach resulted in quite successful national and regional IGFs, bringing valuable contributions to the debates and dialogues in the main IGF. A hint on what we would do if Moon does not react and things follow this absurd path is missing, I think. We respectfully request and do not dare to mention what would a next step be on our part if we are just kicked in the butt by the Secre (which is a real possibility)? fraternal regards --c.a. Deirdre Williams wrote: > Make sure then that para 3 is edited to remove (though never formalised), > possibly adding a reference to formalisation process. > Deirdre > > > On 16 February 2010 08:26, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > >> Thank you, Jeremy, for the first draft. >> >> I think than in the 3rd para, we could refer to the relevant decisions by >> the ECOSOC that actually formalized the participation of other stakeholders >> in the work of the CSTD, e g.: >> >> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including >> the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and assessment work >> tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this >> purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder >> approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other >> stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 >> and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, >> academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to >> participate in the work of the CSTD. >> >> Best, >> >> Yrjö >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:52:02 +0000 >> To: jeremy at ciroap.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> From: email at hakik.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD >> >> >> Paragraph four may elaborated further including a few success cases that >> have been initiated by civil societies in several countries aiming at WSIS >> missions. They have elevated Internet governance platforms in those >> countries. Further progress of them requires substantive support in terms of >> policy issues and state level patronization. These will roll out the process >> of inclusive society to achieve the target set at several IGF sessions and >> will open the door to continue as such in future. >> >> Best regards, >> Hakikur Rahman >> >> >> At 10:13 16-02-2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> As agreed, please find below a draft letter to the UNSG (United Nations >> Secretary-General) expressing our strong concern about the usurpation of the >> role of the civil society-friendly CSTD (Commission on Science and >> Technology for Development) in reviewing the conclusions of the UNSG on the >> continuation of the IGF. This is based closely on Wolfgang's post to the >> list that followed on from mine and Yrjö's. This is just a first draft, and >> I might have missed some recent discussions as I'm composing this in the air >> between the US and Europe. >> >> Dear Sir, >> >> As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique >> multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of >> that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation meeting on >> 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will >> not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for >> Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to those of >> several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation >> meeting. >> >> This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis >> Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in >> particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in >> contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance >> of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big >> step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial >> work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented >> in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in >> December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who >> accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to >> the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The >> launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result >> of this. >> >> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS outcomes, >> including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this role was >> to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105). >> The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first >> (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later taken for >> granted (though never formalized). It allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs, >> and private sector representatives, to participate as active observers. In >> fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak >> about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. >> >> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC >> resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on >> the performance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from >> this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. >> >> In contrast, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst >> ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, all they can do is to send written statements >> which are published before the meeting. They have no right to negotiate, no >> right to speak, and no right to access the meeting room to brief (or lobby) >> delegates. Moreover, the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC >> at all. >> >> In other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and >> transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It >> would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private >> sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the >> opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took >> three years and ten PrepComs to change this. >> >> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your >> recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration >> at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by non-governmental >> stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder >> institution. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our >> support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the >> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with >> an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United >> Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). >> >> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> -- >> >> *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 >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up >> now. >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 09:23:33 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:53:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> References: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Hello > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS outcomes, > including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this role was > to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105). > > The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first > (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later taken for > granted (though never formalized). > Do we need the sentence above? > It allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs, and private sector representatives, > to participate as active observers. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that > opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" > of it, rather than just observing. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm* > While this statement emphasizes the continuation of the role of CSTD and the multi-stakeholder involvement in the review and the actual process of IGF, it says little about the achievements (or the superiority) of the multi-stakeholder approach. There could be a short paragraph to extol the virtues of multi-stakeholderism, emphasizing that it is the only approach that would be a fair approach. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Tue Feb 16 09:47:59 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?Windows-1252?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:47:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <4B7A9AD1.5020708@cafonso.ca> References: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> <20100216105249.6F7309100B@npogroups.org> ,<4B7A9AD1.5020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: My intention was to suggest that para 3 would be entirely replaced by this: Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including > >> the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and assessment work> >> tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this> >> purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder> >> approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other> >> stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217> >> and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs,> >> academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to> >> participate in the work of the CSTD. Sorry for not being clear, Yrjö > Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:17:05 -0200 > From: ca at cafonso.ca > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > CC: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD > > I second Deirdre (I would also remove "very complicated" in the same para). > > Also, I would try to briefly stress how the pluralist approach resulted > in quite successful national and regional IGFs, bringing valuable > contributions to the debates and dialogues in the main IGF. > > A hint on what we would do if Moon does not react and things follow this > absurd path is missing, I think. We respectfully request and do not dare > to mention what would a next step be on our part if we are just kicked > in the butt by the Secre (which is a real possibility)? > > fraternal regards > > --c.a. > > Deirdre Williams wrote: > > Make sure then that para 3 is edited to remove (though never formalised), > > possibly adding a reference to formalisation process. > > Deirdre > > > > > > On 16 February 2010 08:26, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > > > >> Thank you, Jeremy, for the first draft. > >> > >> I think than in the 3rd para, we could refer to the relevant decisions by > >> the ECOSOC that actually formalized the participation of other stakeholders > >> in the work of the CSTD, e g.: > >> > >> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including > >> the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and assessment work > >> tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this > >> purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder > >> approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other > >> stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 > >> and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, > >> academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to > >> participate in the work of the CSTD. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Yrjö > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:52:02 +0000 > >> To: jeremy at ciroap.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> From: email at hakik.org > >> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD > >> > >> > >> Paragraph four may elaborated further including a few success cases that > >> have been initiated by civil societies in several countries aiming at WSIS > >> missions. They have elevated Internet governance platforms in those > >> countries. Further progress of them requires substantive support in terms of > >> policy issues and state level patronization. These will roll out the process > >> of inclusive society to achieve the target set at several IGF sessions and > >> will open the door to continue as such in future. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Hakikur Rahman > >> > >> > >> At 10:13 16-02-2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> > >> As agreed, please find below a draft letter to the UNSG (United Nations > >> Secretary-General) expressing our strong concern about the usurpation of the > >> role of the civil society-friendly CSTD (Commission on Science and > >> Technology for Development) in reviewing the conclusions of the UNSG on the > >> continuation of the IGF. This is based closely on Wolfgang's post to the > >> list that followed on from mine and Yrjö's. This is just a first draft, and > >> I might have missed some recent discussions as I'm composing this in the air > >> between the US and Europe. > >> > >> Dear Sir, > >> > >> As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique > >> multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > >> writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of > >> that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation meeting on > >> 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will > >> not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for > >> Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to those of > >> several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation > >> meeting. > >> > >> This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis > >> Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in > >> particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in > >> contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance > >> of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big > >> step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial > >> work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented > >> in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in > >> December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who > >> accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to > >> the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The > >> launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result > >> of this. > >> > >> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS outcomes, > >> including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this role was > >> to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105). > >> The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first > >> (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later taken for > >> granted (though never formalized). It allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs, > >> and private sector representatives, to participate as active observers. In > >> fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak > >> about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. > >> > >> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC > >> resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on > >> the performance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from > >> this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > >> > >> In contrast, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst > >> ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, all they can do is to send written statements > >> which are published before the meeting. They have no right to negotiate, no > >> right to speak, and no right to access the meeting room to brief (or lobby) > >> delegates. Moreover, the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC > >> at all. > >> > >> In other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and > >> transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It > >> would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private > >> sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the > >> opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took > >> three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > >> > >> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your > >> recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration > >> at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by non-governmental > >> stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder > >> institution. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our > >> support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > >> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with > >> an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United > >> Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > >> > >> Thank you for your consideration. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> *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 > >> > >> > >> ------------------------------ > >> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up > >> now. > >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 16 09:59:53 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 06:59:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Google's fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) networks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <944632.52936.qm@web83903.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Clearly FTC exceptions are to many to enumerate.  But the core question that would not be in real debate would be "does this hurt competition?" Clearly not. --- On Tue, 2/16/10, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: [governance] Google's fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) networks To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 10:55 AM Dear all Is this not going to atract anti-trust/ cross-ownership attention? Google has announced plans to build a number of trial fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) networks in communities across the US, claiming that it will provide broadband at downlink speeds of up to 1Gbps. James Kelly, project manager on Google's infrastructure team, said: ‘We are doing this because we want to experiment with new ways to make the web better and faster for everyone, allowing new applications that aren't possible today. We are going to try out new ways to build and operate fibre networks and share what we learn with the world.’ http://telecomafrica.blogspot.com/2010/02/google-to-build-fibre-optic-network.html -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 16 10:03:14 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 07:03:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <33274.92872.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This "system" "process" "method" of drafting "statements" is not appropriate.   And as we have seen, the later call for consensus will be more a statement of support that the IGF continue and be heard ---- rather than what is heard. --- On Tue, 2/16/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Date: Tuesday, February 16, 2010, 2:23 PM Hello   On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this role was to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105).   The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later taken for granted (though never formalized).   Do we need the sentence above?   It allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs, and private sector representatives, to participate as active observers.  In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing.  --  Jeremy Malcolm While this statement emphasizes the continuation of the role of CSTD and the multi-stakeholder involvement in the review and the actual process of IGF, it says little about the achievements (or the superiority) of the multi-stakeholder approach.  There could be a short paragraph to extol the virtues of multi-stakeholderism, emphasizing that it is the only approach that would be a fair approach.   Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Feb 16 10:14:37 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> <20100216105249.6F7309100B@npogroups.org> ,<4B7A9AD1.5020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <4B7AB65D.9050001@cafonso.ca> This is important as it refers precisely to specific formal decisions by Ecosoc. --c.a. Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > My intention was to suggest that para 3 would be entirely replaced by this: > > Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including >> >> the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and > assessment work >> >> tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this >> >> purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the > multistakeholder >> >> approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other >> >> stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, > 2008/217 >> >> and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, >> >> academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to >> >> participate in the work of the CSTD. > > > Sorry for not being clear, > > Yrjö > > >> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 11:17:05 -0200 >> From: ca at cafonso.ca >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; williams.deirdre at gmail.com >> CC: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com >> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD >> >> I second Deirdre (I would also remove "very complicated" in the same > para). >> >> Also, I would try to briefly stress how the pluralist approach resulted >> in quite successful national and regional IGFs, bringing valuable >> contributions to the debates and dialogues in the main IGF. >> >> A hint on what we would do if Moon does not react and things follow this >> absurd path is missing, I think. We respectfully request and do not dare >> to mention what would a next step be on our part if we are just kicked >> in the butt by the Secre (which is a real possibility)? >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> Deirdre Williams wrote: >> > Make sure then that para 3 is edited to remove (though never > formalised), >> > possibly adding a reference to formalisation process. >> > Deirdre >> > >> > >> > On 16 February 2010 08:26, Yrjö Länsipuro > wrote: >> > >> >> Thank you, Jeremy, for the first draft. >> >> >> >> I think than in the 3rd para, we could refer to the relevant > decisions by >> >> the ECOSOC that actually formalized the participation of other > stakeholders >> >> in the work of the CSTD, e g.: >> >> >> >> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, > including >> >> the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and > assessment work >> >> tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this >> >> purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the > multistakeholder >> >> approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other >> >> stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, > 2008/217 >> >> and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, >> >> academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to >> >> participate in the work of the CSTD. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Yrjö >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 10:52:02 +0000 >> >> To: jeremy at ciroap.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> From: email at hakik.org >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD >> >> >> >> >> >> Paragraph four may elaborated further including a few success cases > that >> >> have been initiated by civil societies in several countries aiming > at WSIS >> >> missions. They have elevated Internet governance platforms in those >> >> countries. Further progress of them requires substantive support in > terms of >> >> policy issues and state level patronization. These will roll out > the process >> >> of inclusive society to achieve the target set at several IGF > sessions and >> >> will open the door to continue as such in future. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> Hakikur Rahman >> >> >> >> >> >> At 10:13 16-02-2010, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> >> As agreed, please find below a draft letter to the UNSG (United Nations >> >> Secretary-General) expressing our strong concern about the > usurpation of the >> >> role of the civil society-friendly CSTD (Commission on Science and >> >> Technology for Development) in reviewing the conclusions of the > UNSG on the >> >> continuation of the IGF. This is based closely on Wolfgang's post > to the >> >> list that followed on from mine and Yrjö's. This is just a first > draft, and >> >> I might have missed some recent discussions as I'm composing this > in the air >> >> between the US and Europe. >> >> >> >> Dear Sir, >> >> >> >> As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and > its unique >> >> multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus >> >> writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential > weakening of >> >> that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation > meeting on >> >> 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the > IGF will >> >> not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for >> >> Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to > those of >> >> several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open > consultation >> >> meeting. >> >> >> >> This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis >> >> Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in >> >> particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in >> >> contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The > acceptance >> >> of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was > a big >> >> step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and > substantial >> >> work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, > documented >> >> in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in > Geneva in >> >> December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who >> >> accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the > contribution to >> >> the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The >> >> launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was > the result >> >> of this. >> >> >> >> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS > outcomes, >> >> including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this > role was >> >> to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, > para 105). >> >> The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which > was first >> >> (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later > taken for >> >> granted (though never formalized). It allows for all > WSIS-accredited NGOs, >> >> and private sector representatives, to participate as active > observers. In >> >> fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other > stakeholders speak >> >> about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. >> >> >> >> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC >> >> resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including > assessments on >> >> the performance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden > departure from >> >> this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. >> >> >> >> In contrast, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. > Whilst >> >> ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, all they can do is to send written > statements >> >> which are published before the meeting. They have no right to > negotiate, no >> >> right to speak, and no right to access the meeting room to brief > (or lobby) >> >> delegates. Moreover, the private sector has no representation > within ECOSOC >> >> at all. >> >> >> >> In other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an > open and >> >> transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental > stakeholders. It >> >> would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and > the private >> >> sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the >> >> opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It > took >> >> three years and ten PrepComs to change this. >> >> >> >> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by > transmitting your >> >> recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for > consideration >> >> at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by > non-governmental >> >> stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder >> >> institution. We would also like to take this opportunity to > reiterate our >> >> support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder > forum for the >> >> discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in > Geneva, with >> >> an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United >> >> Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). >> >> >> >> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> *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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. > Sign up >> >> now. >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >> -- >> >> Carlos A. Afonso >> CGI.br (www.cgi.br) >> Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) >> ==================================== >> new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca >> ==================================== > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now. > > -- Carlos A. Afonso CGI.br (www.cgi.br) Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) ==================================== new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca ==================================== ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Tue Feb 16 13:12:00 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 19:12:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD References: <4b7ad926.0837560a.7f54.ffff9483@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Important tweak needed Begin forwarded message: > From: "Renate Bloem \(Gmail\)" > Date: February 16, 2010 6:42:57 PM GMT+01:00 > To: "'William Drake'" > Cc: "'Jeremy Malcolm'" , '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"' > Subject: RE: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD > > You can forward this to the list > > Renate > > From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] > Sent: mardi, 16. février 2010 15:18 > To: Renate Bloem (Gmail) > Cc: 'Jeremy Malcolm'; '"Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"' > Subject: Re: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD > > Hi, > > THanks for this corrective Renate. Would have been good to send to the list, but either way let's take it on board as the doc is tweaked. > > Bill > > > On Feb 16, 2010, at 12:22 PM, Renate Bloem (Gmail) wrote: > > > Dear Malcolm, > > This is a very good statement. However, what I said before and put here in red is not correct. NGOs in consultative status (there are more than 3500) can address ECOSOC; sit in the meetings and lobby governments, circulate language etc. I sat in numerous ECOSOC meetings, even spoke at the High-level section. > > The problem is, of course, that many of WSIS CSOs do not have consultative status > > So try to express the red part a little differently: e.g. that their influence is limited or that much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC …or ….. I leave this up to you. > > I mentioned before that the Cardoso report (in which I was through consultations heavily engaged) failed to be adopted a.o. because governments used the argument that the Panel of Eminent Persons did not even accurately know the consultative arrangements. > > This should not be said to this statement. > > Since I am now only looking at this list from a far, I send thos only to you, Wolfgang and Bill. > > Best wishes, > > Renate > -------- > Renate Bloem > Past President of CONGO > Civicus UN Geneva > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > Mobile : +41763462310 > renate.bloem at civicus.org > renate.bloem at gmail.com > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > www.civicus.org > > > > > > From: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Sent: mardi, 16. février 2010 11:13 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD > > As agreed, please find below a draft letter to the UNSG (United Nations Secretary-General) expressing our strong concern about the usurpation of the role of the civil society-friendly CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development) in reviewing the conclusions of the UNSG on the continuation of the IGF. This is based closely on Wolfgang's post to the list that followed on from mine and Yrjö's. This is just a first draft, and I might have missed some recent discussions as I'm composing this in the air between the US and Europe. > > Dear Sir, > > As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to those of several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation meeting. > > This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result of this. > > Responsibility for system-wide follow-up and review of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC through its CSTD, and this role was to be managed using a multi-stakeholder approach (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception, but was later taken for granted (though never formalized). It allows for all WSIS-accredited NGOs, and private sector representatives, to participate as active observers. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, rather than just observing. > > With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > > In contrast, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, all they can do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. They have no right to negotiate, no right to speak, and no right to access the meeting room to brief (or lobby) delegates. Moreover, the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. > > In other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > > We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by non-governmental stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder institution. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > > Thank you for your consideration. > -- > 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. > > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 14:30:53 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:00:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: Hello Katiza ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the dictum that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away from the sea shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea; if the capital is close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to the members of the Government, so there is greater likelihood of the merchants corrupting the politicians). Telecom corporations have the rare advantage of being seated alongside Government at the ITU. This anomalous position makes it possible for the telecoms to exercise an undue influence on governments, unnoticed by the Governments. The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established standards for telegraphic and phone communication. Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes in their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a part of this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with a business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part. This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions of any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence national and global policies related to all communication. ITU's core concern is that it should govern and control all business of communication. The ITU sets policies and rules in all communication: Telegraphs, telephones, mobile phones and it also manages the RF spectrum and satellite communications with the exception of the Internet. ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by telecom companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take charge of the Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not happen as the Internet took shape as a free and open medium. The Internet evolved to be way beyond the purview of the ITU and it shape as a world on its own. In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it couldn't succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered the Civil Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not decision) related to the Internet. This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization with its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet threatened the business models of telecom companies as technologies such as email, VOIP began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found a new breed of phone companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU rules becoming phenomenally successful and an emerging threat to phone company revenues. The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all of which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet architecture and Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So the ITU tried to interject itself in the Internet Standards process. The Critical Internet Resources could be brought under the ITU umbrella by taking over a vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That could ensure a technical dominance of the Internet by the ITU. But for overall control, ITU needs to take over Internet Governance with the argument that easily fools at least a few policy makers: that the ITU is a well organized, 145 year old organization that has 191 national governments as its members. It attempts to derive a position in policy making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) by interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in reality a business union. The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an attempt to position itself / retain its position in the policy arena. The ITU asserts its position in policy making in subtle ways. For instance, at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said " We have no intention whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what the ICANN is doing best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what is the mandate of the ITU of policy-making, public-policy issues and so on” That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that policy making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate and unequaled role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was somehow allowed to slip in without a challenge at the IGF. At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation of IP addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the Secretary General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to take over ICANN. ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes the 'tensions'. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez < katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > Greetings: > > Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. > > Thanks. > > > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > My constructive dissection: >> >> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >>> institution; >>> >> for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN >> Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >> contract >> with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs >> (UNDESA). We >> do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN >> body. >> >> I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving >> underneath >> a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. >> Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more directly. >> (Spit >> it out) >> >> Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is to be >> subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain >> independent >> of the UN umbrella. >> >> I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF for >> serval >> reasons, >> 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to hose >> the >> IGF >> 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among Equals' >> (among >> all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by the >> MDG and >> WSIS Declarations. >> 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement establishes the >> IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. >> ... >> Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese & >> Markus) >> the fuel to fight. >> I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact now is >> the >> time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La Chapelle >> puts >> it can come later. >> >> Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too "Piercing >> the >> corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the UN >> Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the >> determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real-time and >> transparent to All. >> >> I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They (the >> UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in regards >> to >> Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/actions >> were >> evidence of the fact. >> --- >> >> * Piercing the corporate Veil >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 15:17:31 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 01:47:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: Hello Wolfgang Kleinwaechter and Hello All, On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:34 PM, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Dear list > > I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises its > voice in this case. > Thank you for your lucid message that explains the status of the review process. As stated by Yrjo in his message, Civil Society would be reduced to that of observers (or outsiders) if CSTD is bypassed in the review process. On this issue, IGC has to raise its voice and go beyond its traditional ways of 'raising it vocie' by written statements or submissions. It is more important "to look for partners, both among "friendly governments" and private sector institutions" as you have emphasized. It requires on and off line efforts. > My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to > cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the > principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy > processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence > non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues > and decision making. > The role of non-governmental stakeholders in the policy process not only made some governments uncomfortable, but also the ITU, for various reasons. > This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the Tunis > Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in > particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in > contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". In telecommunication policy decisions it was apparently an inter-governmental process,but not quite. The ITU had a role to play in its apparent status as a UN Agency, though in reality it is a business union. ITU sought to extend its status to Internet Policy, but perceived a serious threat to its status in the trend towards multi-stakeholderism. So it was not only Governments that are opposed to mutlistakeholderism, but also the ITU. > The acceptance of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in their specific > role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive > and substantial work the CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in > particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in > December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who > accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to > the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The > launch of the IGF as a "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result > of this. It emerged as the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate > because governments were unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in > the understanding of many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental > stakeholders). > > However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing > power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007 > where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of > non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of > these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese > delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term > "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a > "used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva > 2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for > international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of > "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral > convention" are only governments. > > The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first > (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later taken for > granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not > the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send you > to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop > global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The > so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN policy > development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the archives > and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready to > draft a resolution with a follow up. > Is there a way to find one UN member state to introduce a draft resolution to revive the recommendations covered by the cardozo Report ? By Brazil perhaps? > > I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the > planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also > by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the > Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments > (and unfortunately supported by some CS people) Who are the CS people and organizations that support this move? Possibly US based CS groups and individuals misguided by their patriotic prejudices? We should work on making them understand. > in favour of NY are: budget security for the secretariat, closer link to UN > leadership, higher efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a > process is to silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil > society. Do not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. > > The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also hundreds of > "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental > stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International > Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an > elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is > officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can > do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. You > can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes > several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right to > speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or > lobby) delegates. > > With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and > transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It > re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. > It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) were > removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions > ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten > PrepComs to change this. > > This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the > planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three > intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent > preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on > the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs > relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU > when he was asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism". > > During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS > Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked officially > to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which > emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less > disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of > "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under > fire. > > I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and > activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger > political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need > beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to > find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have > permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND > macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly > governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a > certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. Is this statement that they are in the "same boat as CS" true of "friendly governments"? Some of the friendly governments are in a position to influence policies in their region, some of well respected even outside their regions and some are in a position to lead a group of nations. As a starting point, the IGC participants from Government may sit together and identify "friendly governments" and responsible Government representatives (within CSTD, ECOSOC, MAG, GAC, or within political regions that are active in the Internet Governance arena such as OECD or EU). Apart from the IGC participants from Government, a few non-governmental participants of IGC would also be in a position to reach their respective governments to influence policy. Not all news is bad. Switzerland and other European Governments are vocal in their opposition to a reduced role for CSTD. Most European Governments are sensitive to the concerns of their citizens or at least approachable to their citizens and CS groups. Some Governments can even be considered pro-Internet : Brazil, Finland ... Civil Society could begin its work starting with these governments. Apart from consolidating their support, we need to get them to influence opinions to the extent possible. In this effort, some of the large, powerful pro-Internet Corporations would be of great help, if we can reach them either on our own, or through International Internet Organizations. I also wonder why India or Egypt is not doing anything to influence the developing nations through the Non Alignment movement > And please, stay united. > > I have seen an unseen hand causing differences among the good forces, especially by breeding mistrust among ourselves. The need of the hour is to stay united. > And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet > Governance. There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the > Information Society (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of > the Tunis Agenda and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. > WSIS has to be reconstituted as expressed in another message from Wolfgang Kleinwaechter. > Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting > times we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the 2010s. > So many things to do apart from making statements. Statements are important, but some quiet work is essential to cause the required change. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Best wishes > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] > Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the > > > > Yes, I think there should be a statement. > > After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it > was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were > immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European) governments as > well as from private sector representatives, asking for explanation why CSTD > would be cut out of the process. > > > The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the > implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and ECOSOC, > and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the ECOSOC > resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the perfortmance > of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on > the question of the continuation of the IGF. > > > As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last > summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector representatives > have much better access and opportunity to influence the proceedings at the > CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened > CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of it, > rather than just observing. > > > Yrjö Länsipuro > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: jeremy at ciroap.org > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the > continuation of the IGF > > Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have > subsequently read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA > and the CSTD over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the > continuation of the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General > Assembly receiving it to make a final decision. > > UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the > Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to > ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought > that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at its > upcoming May meeting. > > The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of > civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those > entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for civil society, if we wish to > give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that > they go to the CSTD first. > > Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? > > > -- > 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. > > > > ________________________________ > > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 16:22:37 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:52:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs In-Reply-To: References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> Message-ID: Hello Avri Doria, On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2010, at 10:47, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > In the case of the CEO's compensation for the year, I wouldn't worry > about a $ 250,000 difference. It isn't much. > > It could help to fund at least one application by some worthy applicant > from a developing region maybe even seed money for a Foundation to help > applicants from developing regions. Lots of things could be done with that > 250K that you think is not so much. Maybe he will donate it to some good > cause since it is not so much. > I don't see anything disagreeable in anything that you say, but I also happen to be right in my own way. I agree that $ 250, let alone $250,000 is a valuable sum that can do something meaningful, but at the same time, it is also true that it is not an atrocious sum of money as a difference in a CEO's salary that merits an endless debate. > > > And not a significant difference to merit an embarrassing discussion in a > public list or in an open forum. > > To whom is this discussion embarrassing? You, me? I am not embarrassed. > If we don't talk about here, then where? If one sees excess, it needs to > be pointed out. > > > There are good natured people with the required qualification who would > opt to work at low compensation levels, but it is not always necessary for > all non-profit corporations to take advantage of the goodness of such > people. > > I disagree. We should find the people who are dedicated, know the field > and are willing to take a reasonable wage. I accept the need to pay them a > livable wage for LA, Brussels or even Palo Alto, and I accept that they have > higher then normal expenses while doing their job - I even accept that they > travel business class since that is the only way to travel and work at the > same time. I do not accept that they need to be paid according to the > standards of profit making industry or need TV studios in the Palo Alto > office. > $750,000 as a salary of a CEO of a large corporation isn't anywhere near the untold scales of profit corporations. In India CEOs of some of the private business groups have taken home / still take home compensation in the realm of $5 to $10 million a year or more, and one of India's famous business group heads had a salary of a little over INR 1 billion $20 million eight or nine years ago. In developed countries, if you take the Stock options and other benefits into account, there are 10 CEOs in the compensation bracket of $35 - $115 million per year. So this amount of $750,000 a year is not according to the standards of profit making industry. I don't understand the reason behind the reference to TV studios in Palo Alto office. If you have said this because Rod Beckstrom has or plans to have a "TV studio" in his Palo Alto office, if one is established already, I would argue that it is a required inhouse facility given the scope of use for video conferencing / video recording equipment in his work as CEO of ICANN which has a culture of video conferencing and video interviews. What can a 'TV studio' possibly cost today? $ 10 - $ 25, 000 ? A profit corporation wouldn't mind hiring a holywood cinematographer in addition. > > > Our energies could instead be directed towards finding ways of enhancing > ICANN's revenues in areas where it is due, where it does not become a burden > for the user. That would be several times more rewarding than saving a few > thousand dollars on Executive Compensation. > > It is a symbolic issue. One of the problem i see in IANN is that it > persists in seeing itself through the lens of a profit making corporation. > This excuses a whole lot of problems. > It would be wrong if ICANN indiscriminately sees itself through the lens of a profit corporation. At the same time it is not necessary to have a harshly conservative outlook about ICANN because it happens not to be a poor corporation in a state of total financial misfortune. Also, I am not defending specific salary decisions of specific individuals as much as I am confronting a mindset that those who work for a non-profit corporation should sacrifice what is due to them. > > And do not think that there is any will in ICANN for unburdening the poor > user (the ICANN tax on domain names is not after all, the real burden on the > user). > (Even if it is a deviation from the main issue discussed in this message, I wish to say that an average user parts with $10 dollars for a domain name every year of which at least fifty cents could go to ICANN. It doesn't make sense to find the user parting with $10 for a domain name of which almost none goes to the corporation from where the name originates and instead almost all of it goes to the channel.) > E.g. there have been several calls over the years from setting up a > foundation to help applicants who have less then LA style 'bundles of bucks' > in order to make applications - and we have seen no movement in this area. > Finding ways to help ICANN bring in more money will only result in higher > wages for a greater number of employees (don't get me wrong jobs funding is > a good thing - i am happy lots of people have work in ICANN). > I don't want to make an assumption that any increase in revenues would go towards even higher salaries for a greater number of people. That could be controlled. ( As of now, I am not blanket-endorsing the salary scales of all employees of ICANN. As I said earlier, this is more about the mindset against what I consider to be fair salaries for some positions) > If a foundation were set up to channel the some of the bounty, > I am entirely with you on this thought. > including the windfall we will see from gTLD auctions, into a foundation > geared toward development and especially developing a DNS industry in > developing regions, instead of ploughing the money into excessive salaries, > then ICANN would have a better reputation in the world and more importantly > would be doing the right thing. > > I am not embarrassed to say such things. > I felt that this discussion might embarrass the people who have chosen to work for ICANN. In most other corporations, even in non-profit corporations, the compensation for employees is not subjected to a loud public debate. I would have been embarrassed if I were an ICANN executive whose salary is discussed by the community in an open list and in public meetings and goes to press. My salary is meant to be a private arrangement between me and my employer (don't argue that the community is the employer, for this purpose I would argue that the Board is the employer ) and I would consider it a violation of my right to privacy. > > a. > Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jlfullsack at orange.fr Tue Feb 16 16:50:00 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:50:00 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <3167000.11139.1266357000274.JavaMail.www@wwinf1f30> Hello all I think our friend Sivasubramanian is simplifying the constituency and the role(s) of ITU too much, reducing them for the sake of his demonstration. Unfortunately I'm under time pressure so I'm not able to reply in detail. I think that "civil society" is much more broader-minded in terms of what the role of ITU in Internet governance should/could be. Especially NGOs in DCs or other grassroot organizations. Many of them prefer an international governance through a multilateral International organisation, rather than a group of Internet businessmen or gourous with just a couple of CS representatives, depending on one government's constituencies and laws. At least, CS in the IGC should recognize this fact which has been discussed in different CS plenaries during the WSIS process. I often criticize the ITU for having derived from its functions and roles assigned to it by its constitution and, as far as the WSIS follow-up process is concerned, I often asked strongly (as I did once more last week during the preparatory meeting for WSIS Forum in May) the ITU to open its membership to the CS at least in respect of the multistakeholder principle which is guiding this process whose organisator ITU is ! I don't see many signs of support coming from the "Internet community" inside the CS. For concluding I'd just add that I prefer a World governed by democratic governments assembled in international organizations, than one governed by business, finance and banks. And the recent crisis and dramatic events -especially in DCs and in poor communities- is a strong signal for all CS members since they are all CITIZENS ! Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 16/02/10 20:31 > De : "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Katitza Rodriguez" > Copie à : > Objet : Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes > > Hello Katiza > > ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the dictum that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away from the sea shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea; if the capital is close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to the members of the Government, so there is greater likelihood of the merchants corrupting the politicians). Telecom corporations have the rare advantage of being seated alongside Government at the ITU. This anomalous position makes it possible for the telecoms to exercise an undue influence on governments, unnoticed by the Governments. > > The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established standards for telegraphic and phone communication. > > Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes in their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a part of this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with a business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part. > > This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions of any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence national and global policies related to all communication. ITU's core concern is that it should govern and control all business of communication. The ITU sets policies and rules in all communication: Telegraphs, telephones, mobile phones and it also manages the RF spectrum and satellite communications with the exception of the Internet. > > ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by telecom companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take charge of the Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not happen as the Internet took shape as a free and open medium. The Internet evolved to be way beyond the purview of the ITU and it shape as a world on its own. > > In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it couldn't succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered the Civil Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not decision) related to the Internet. > > This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization with its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet threatened the business models of telecom companies as technologies such as email, VOIP began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found a new breed of phone companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU rules becoming phenomenally successful and an emerging threat to phone company revenues. > > The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all of which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet architecture and Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So the ITU tried to interject itself in the Internet Standards process. The Critical Internet Resources could be brought under the ITU umbrella by taking over a vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That could ensure a technical dominance of the Internet by the ITU. But for overall control, ITU needs to take over Internet Governance with the argument that easily fools at least a few policy makers: that the ITU is a well organized, 145 year old organization that has 191 national governments as its members. It attempts to derive a position in policy making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) by interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in reality a business union. > > The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an attempt to position itself / retain its position in the policy arena. The ITU asserts its position in policy making in subtle ways. For instance, at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said " We have no intention whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what the ICANN is doing best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what is the mandate of the ITU of policy-making, public-policy issues and so on” > > That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that policy making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate and unequaled role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was somehow allowed to slip in without a challenge at the IGF. > > At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation of IP addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the Secretary General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to take over ICANN. > > ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes the 'tensions'. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Greetings: > > Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. > > Thanks. > > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > My constructive dissection: > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; > for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN > Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We > do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body. > > I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath > a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. > Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more directly. (Spit > it out) > > Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is to be > subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain independent > of the UN umbrella. > > I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF for serval > reasons, > 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to hose the > IGF > 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among Equals' (among > all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by the MDG and > WSIS Declarations. > 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement establishes the > IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. > ... > Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese & Markus) > the fuel to fight. > I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact now is the > time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La Chapelle puts > it can come later. > > Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too "Piercing the > corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the UN > Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the > determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real-time and > transparent to All. > > I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They (the > UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in regards to > Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/actions were > evidence of the fact. > --- > > * Piercing the corporate Veil > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 16:52:56 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:22:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus In-Reply-To: <4B7930D6.8000401@cafonso.ca> References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> <4B7930D6.8000401@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hello Carlos Thank you for your comments. In a sense I agree that $ 250,000 is a very large sum, but from a different point of view, it also happens to be a sum that is not huge. Also, it is a good idea to create a fund to increase participation or enable good programs. Please take a look at my response today to Avri Doria. It covers all the point you have mentioned. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > With all due respect, Muthusamy, we are talking about US dollars here, > not rupees or yen or... the whole amount is extremely high -- remember, > ICANN is a non-profit organization, not a for-profit corporation!! And > 250K US dollars has a tremendous value for,eg, ICANN creating a more > decent fund to help increase Southern participation, etc etc. > > Like many for-profit corporations, Mr Beckstrom earns nearly two times > as much as his closest aides (Mr Brent, Mr Jeffrey, and Mr Pritz), who > in their turn earn two times as much as the chief financial officer (Mr > Wilson). > > Now I understand why Mr Beckstrom always looks so happy :) > > --c.a. > > Avri Doria wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2010, at 10:47, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > >> In the case of the CEO's compensation for the year, I wouldn't worry > about a $ 250,000 difference. It isn't much. > > > > It could help to fund at least one application by some worthy applicant > from a developing region maybe even seed money for a Foundation to help > applicants from developing regions. Lots of things could be done with that > 250K that you think is not so much. Maybe he will donate it to some good > cause since it is not so much. > > > >> And not a significant difference to merit an embarrassing discussion in > a public list or in an open forum. > > > > To whom is this discussion embarrassing? You, me? I am not embarrassed. > If we don't talk about here, then where? If one sees excess, it needs to > be pointed out. > > > >> There are good natured people with the required qualification who would > opt to work at low compensation levels, but it is not always necessary for > all non-profit corporations to take advantage of the goodness of such > people. > > > > I disagree. We should find the people who are dedicated, know the field > and are willing to take a reasonable wage. I accept the need to pay them a > livable wage for LA, Brussels or even Palo Alto, and I accept that they have > higher then normal expenses while doing their job - I even accept that they > travel business class since that is the only way to travel and work at the > same time. I do not accept that they need to be paid according to the > standards of profit making industry or need TV studios in the Palo Alto > office. > > > >> Our energies could instead be directed towards finding ways of enhancing > ICANN's revenues in areas where it is due, where it does not become a burden > for the user. That would be several times more rewarding than saving a few > thousand dollars on Executive Compensation. > > > > It is a symbolic issue. One of the problem i see in IANN is that it > persists in seeing itself through the lens of a profit making corporation. > This excuses a whole lot of problems. > > > > And do not think that there is any will in ICANN for unburdening the poor > user (the ICANN tax on domain names is not after all, the real burden on the > user). E.g. there have been several calls over the years from setting up a > foundation to help applicants who have less then LA style 'bundles of bucks' > in order to make applications - and we have seen no movement in this area. > Finding ways to help ICANN bring in more money will only result in higher > wages for a greater number of employees (don't get me wrong jobs funding is > a good thing - i am happy lots of people have work in ICANN). If a > foundation were set up to channel the some of the bounty, including the > windfall we will see from gTLD auctions, into a foundation geared toward > development and especially developing a DNS industry in developing regions, > instead of ploughing the money into excessive salaries, then ICANN would > have a better reputation in the world and more importantly would be doing > the right thing. > > > > I am not embarrassed to say such things. > > > > 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 > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Tue Feb 16 17:52:58 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:52:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus In-Reply-To: References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> <4B7930D6.8000401@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Thanks, compa. --c.a. enviado via iPhone On 16/02/2010, at 19:52, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Carlos > > Thank you for your comments. > > In a sense I agree that $ 250,000 is a very large sum, but from a > different point of view, it also happens to be a sum that is not > huge. Also, it is a good idea to create a fund to increase > participation or enable good programs. > > Please take a look at my response today to Avri Doria. It covers all > the point you have mentioned. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Carlos A. Afonso > wrote: > With all due respect, Muthusamy, we are talking about US dollars here, > not rupees or yen or... the whole amount is extremely high -- > remember, > ICANN is a non-profit organization, not a for-profit corporation!! And > 250K US dollars has a tremendous value for,eg, ICANN creating a more > decent fund to help increase Southern participation, etc etc. > > Like many for-profit corporations, Mr Beckstrom earns nearly two times > as much as his closest aides (Mr Brent, Mr Jeffrey, and Mr Pritz), who > in their turn earn two times as much as the chief financial officer > (Mr > Wilson). > > Now I understand why Mr Beckstrom always looks so happy :) > > --c.a. > > Avri Doria wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2010, at 10:47, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > > >> In the case of the CEO's compensation for the year, I wouldn't > worry about a $ 250,000 difference. It isn't much. > > > > It could help to fund at least one application by some worthy > applicant from a developing region maybe even seed money for a > Foundation to help applicants from developing regions. Lots of > things could be done with that 250K that you think is not so much. > Maybe he will donate it to some good cause since it is not so much. > > > >> And not a significant difference to merit an embarrassing > discussion in a public list or in an open forum. > > > > To whom is this discussion embarrassing? You, me? I am not > embarrassed. If we don't talk about here, then where? If one sees > excess, it needs to be pointed out. > > > >> There are good natured people with the required qualification > who would opt to work at low compensation levels, but it is not > always necessary for all non-profit corporations to take advantage > of the goodness of such people. > > > > I disagree. We should find the people who are dedicated, know the > field and are willing to take a reasonable wage. I accept the need > to pay them a livable wage for LA, Brussels or even Palo Alto, and I > accept that they have higher then normal expenses while doing their > job - I even accept that they travel business class since that is > the only way to travel and work at the same time. I do not accept > that they need to be paid according to the standards of profit > making industry or need TV studios in the Palo Alto office. > > > >> Our energies could instead be directed towards finding ways of > enhancing ICANN's revenues in areas where it is due, where it does > not become a burden for the user. That would be several times more > rewarding than saving a few thousand dollars on Executive > Compensation. > > > > It is a symbolic issue. One of the problem i see in IANN is that > it persists in seeing itself through the lens of a profit making > corporation. This excuses a whole lot of problems. > > > > And do not think that there is any will in ICANN for unburdening > the poor user (the ICANN tax on domain names is not after all, the > real burden on the user). E.g. there have been several calls over > the years from setting up a foundation to help applicants who have > less then LA style 'bundles of bucks' in order to make applications > - and we have seen no movement in this area. Finding ways to help > ICANN bring in more money will only result in higher wages for a > greater number of employees (don't get me wrong jobs funding is a > good thing - i am happy lots of people have work in ICANN). If a > foundation were set up to channel the some of the bounty, including > the windfall we will see from gTLD auctions, into a foundation > geared toward development and especially developing a DNS industry > in developing regions, instead of ploughing the money into excessive > salaries, then ICANN would have a better reputation in the world and > more importantly would be doing the right thing. > > > > I am not embarrassed to say such things. > > > > 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 > > -- > > Carlos A. Afonso > CGI.br (www.cgi.br) > Nupef (www.nupef.org.br) > ==================================== > new/nuevo/novo e-mail: ca at cafonso.ca > ==================================== > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 19:42:49 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:42:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?Google_Buzz_Has_Completely_Changed?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?_the_Game:_Here=92s_How?= In-Reply-To: <808a83f61002161625g60e05c28hfc2c16f4e2ae7b0a@mail.gmail.com> References: <808a83f61002161625g60e05c28hfc2c16f4e2ae7b0a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <808a83f61002161642x68475cf7qcb326b84439d2781@mail.gmail.com> Click on http://mashable.com/2010/02/14/google-buzz-column/ if you can't read the Rich Text email below. Google Buzz Has Completely Changed the Game: Here’s How Buzz this!1908 573Share email share *GMAIL USERS: We hope you’ll join the discussion over on Mashable’s Google Buzz account .* *The Social Analyst is a weekly column by Mashable Co-Editor Ben Parr , where he digs into social media trends and how they are affecting companies in the space.* Google[image: Google] may have finally figured out social media, even if there have been some major slip-ups in the way. The implications of that realization could dramatically change social media as a tool and as an industry. On Tuesday, February 9th, Google launched Buzz for Gmail, a service for sharing thoughts, multimedia, and your social media feeds with your friends utilizing Gmail[image: Gmail] as the conduit. The result: over 160,000 Google Buzz posts and comments per hour . It’s becoming increasingly clear that Google didn’t launch a small addition to Gmail — no, it has dropped a nuclear bomb whose fallout will permanently alter the social media landscape. I could never have predicted that it would become so popular so fast when I first learned about it . Why? Why has it grown so rapidly? Why has it riled up such strong emotions on both sides? Are the privacy issues going to permanently damage Google? And most of all, what does Google Buzz[image: Google Buzz] mean for Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the social media world? I’m going to tackle all of these questions and more in this week’s in-depth column. ------------------------------ Google Buzz’s Skyrocketing Usage ------------------------------ While it’s still very early into Buzz’s life cycle, initial indications show that Google has a hit on its hands. Linking Buzz to Gmail’s millions of users has clearly brought people into the company’s new social domain. Google has only released two numbers so far: there have been over 9 million posts and comments in about 56 hours, amounting to around 160,000 posts and comments per hour. That’s even more impressive if you consider the fact that most users didn’t get Buzz until Wednesday the 10th. The other number: over 200 mobile check-ins per minute, nearly*300,000 mobile check-ins per day*. Those numbers are simply stellar. ------------------------------ Why Have Users Embraced Buzz? ------------------------------ It’s a question that has both simple and complex answers: why has Google Buzz taken off as a service (thus far) in ways that Orkut[image: Orkut] , Google Friend Connect[image: google friend connect], and Google’s other attempts at social media did not? Let’s start with the most obvious one, and one I think was a brilliant move, despite the privacy issues: *it’s wired directly into Gmail*. With a flip of a switch, Buzz gained tens of millions of users. With the Buzz tab just directly under “Inbox,” the service creating its own unread count, and Buzz emails flooding inboxes, how could people not try it out? The embrace goes deeper than that, though. I asked the Mashable Buzz community the following: “Why do think Google Buzz has gained traction so quickly? What’s the #1 reason you find yourself using Buzz?” Here are some of the responses we received that I believe really sum up Buzz’s popularity: - Adrian Eden : Ease of use and simple interface - Eyal Herlin – it just works for me. i like the zero effort setup and the making of connections easy - Sheldon Steiger – #1? It’s embedded into Gmail. After that, it seems to be exposing me to people and subjects that were not readily visible in the other networks. - Roy Ruhling – On a scale of 1-10 for “socialness” of social networks Twitter is about a 3, Facebook is about a 4 and Buzz is about a 9. It honestly and truly connects people from all over the world instantaneously - Daniel L – The main reason buzz is growing so quickly is because it is easily accessible to Gmail’s large and already established user base. Normally, Gmail is the one site i always have open because it has my calendar, my to do list, and my chat all in one window. Because of this, i always see when i have new Buzz, and i will tend to check it and respond. This is the #1 reason i use it — convenience. *Summary:* Easy to use, accessible, convenient, closer social circle, moves in real-time, engaging… *Google’s got a monster on its hands.* ------------------------------ Addressing the Privacy Issue ------------------------------ One of the obstacles to Google Buzz’s growth — and a major point of criticism — has been the privacy issue. Since it’s linked directly into Gmail, people can figure out your email address. Since it auto-followed your most emailed friends, people could figure out your email habits. All of these issues are legitimate, but here’s the thing: *Google is responding with lightning speed*. Yesterday the search giant made some serious privacy tweaks , making auto-follow into auto-suggest and giving you the ability to completely kill Buzz if you so choose. In a few months, few will remember these privacy snafus. Just as people have forgotten about the Facebook News Feed fiasco and other Facebook disasters, people will forgive and forget about Buzz’s initial privacy concerns. In that sense, Google will get the best of both worlds: it has seeded Google Buzz with people and content via the auto-follow and automatic opt-in features, but it won’t feel the heat for privacy issues due to the recent changes to both. It may have been unintended, but it was savvy. ------------------------------ The Potential Impact on Twitter and Facebook ------------------------------ Now that we’ve established that Google Buzz is growing and isn’t likely to go anywhere anytime soon, it’s time to look towards what will happen next. If Google Buzz is here to stay, what does that mean for the two kingpins of social media, Twitter [image: Twitter] andFacebook [image: Facebook] ? If you don’t think both companies haven’t had constant meetings over the potential impact of Buzz, then you are kidding yourselves. There’s no way both companies don’t have people analyzing scenarios and Google’s plan for its social media wunderkind. To analyze the potential impact of Buzz on both services, lets look at the key questions for Twitter and Facebook, and some possible answers: *Q: Will Buzz Kill either Facebook or Twitter?* *A: No.* There’s probably nothing that could kill either service. The user bases are too large and passionate for that to happen. *Q: Could Buzz slow down the growth of Fb/Twitter?* *A: Absolutely.* Imagine that 15 million people are spending 15 more minutes in their Gmail inbox because of Buzz, whether that’s browsing what their friends are saying or creating their own posts. There are only 24 hours in a day, so that time has to be taken from somewhere. Yes, part of that time is being taken away from tweeting and facebooking. Even if it just means one less status update per person per day, that adds up to millions of updates lost to Buzz. The effect could be a lot worse. We just can’t know yet. *Q: Could Buzz become bigger than Twitter?* *A: It already is*: While we can’t pinpoint an exact number, Twitter has probably around 18-25 million users worldwide . Heck, let’s say there are 30 million to be generous. Gmail has over 38 million uniques in the U.S., and that was back in September 2009. Worldwide, that number is simply larger. Yes, there are far more tweets than comments/posts on Buzz right now, but beating those engagement numbers isn’t out of the question for Buzz. *Q: Could advertisers and brands switch some of their dollars and focus from Facebook and Twitter to Buzz?* *A: With millions of people using Buzz, how could they not?* Buzz is already taking a chunk out of Twitter, Facebook, and other social media services. That’ll only grow as brands and advertisers better understand what they can do with Buzz and its millions of users. Buzz is equivalent to throwing a giant super magnet into a room filled with nails. ------------------------------ Predicting How Google Buzz Will Play Out ------------------------------ Google Buzz has landed, and its impact is already changing the landscape. Gmail integration, real-time commenting, ease of use, and a new base of users that might not have been as socially engaged are now part of the Buzz universe. Not only can you expect Facebook and Twitter to respond with their own features and partnerships, but you can expect developers to shift their focus as well. Remember last year when there was a Twitter app gold rush? I do — as the service skyrocketed, countless developers embraced Twitter’s API and built amazing apps on top of it. Facebook had the same experience when its platform first launched. Now it’s Google’s turn. Buzz is an open platform, meaning that developers will soon be able to create new apps for Buzz — everything from iPhone apps to analytical services will be built on top of it. Now if Google wanted to really shake up the developer ecosystem, it could offer ad revenue share for Buzz apps and its own app store. Gmail advertising is already well developed, and if you haven’t noticed yet, Buzz already has Google ads being placed against it. Offering apps the ability to quickly and easily monetize within Google Buzz could really take away from development resources being placed towards Twitter, Facebook, and mobile platforms. If Buzz can keep up the momentum, everyone from publishers (like ourselves) to developers to Fortune 500 companies will have to pay attention to the conversations happening on Buzz. If this thing can drive traffic or put a big brand on its toes because of a buzz that goes viral, then there’s no telling how far it will go. Oh, and Google’s only just begun with this thing — more killer features are in its immediate future. The social media landscape has been permanently altered. To ignore Buzz would be a costly mistake, because Google has finally created the definition of a game-changer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tracyhackshaw at gmail.com Tue Feb 16 19:47:26 2010 From: tracyhackshaw at gmail.com (Tracy F. Hackshaw @ Google) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:47:26 -0400 Subject: [governance] Google Buzz Prompts Privacy Investigation in Canada Message-ID: <808a83f61002161647h700980e0mee195c6d84c996a0@mail.gmail.com> Click on http://mashable.com/2010/02/16/canada-privacy-google-buzz/ if you can't read the Rich Text email below .. Google Buzz Prompts Privacy Investigation in Canada Buzz this!22 7Share email share The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada – the same office that prompted major changes at Facebook – is taking a closer look at the privacy implications of Google Buzz. According to CBC News, the office may issue further comment on Wednesday. With Facebook, the privacy commissioner was concerned about the social networking storing user information after users deleted their accounts, eventually prompting a number of policy and feature changes at the site that have been implemented worldwide. With Buzz, the investigation presumably focuses on the service’s more controversial aspects – namely, the way in which it automatically finds users to follow based on your email correspondence – a practice that has drawn criticism (and quick feature adjustments by Google) since Buzz debuted in user’s Gmail inboxes last week. Stateside, the Electronic Privacy Information Center has filed a complaint with the FTC asking them to investigate Buzz, writing that the product “violated user expectations, diminished user privacy, contradicted Google’s privacy policy, and may have violated federal wiretap laws.” It’s safe to say that this story is far from over. In the meantime, we’re continuing to experiment with Buzz – you can follow us here . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Tue Feb 16 20:54:12 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:54:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs In-Reply-To: References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> Message-ID: <146DC0C3-42FC-4A31-81BB-AE695A52EB37@psg.com> On 16 Feb 2010, at 16:22, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > I would have been embarrassed if I were an ICANN executive whose salary is discussed by the community in an open list and in public meetings and goes to press. My salary is meant to be a private arrangement between me and my employer (don't argue that the community is the employer, for this purpose I would argue that the Board is the employer ) and I would consider it a violation of my right to privacy. > actualyl, t his credit, he made the salary public. i am sure nothing i could say could embarrass the president of ICANN. his skin is a lot thicker than that. i expect. 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 Tue Feb 16 21:20:45 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 07:50:45 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <4B7B527D.5080505@itforchange.net> There is a good amount of truth in your analysis Siva, but I do not understand that when you so roundly criticize ITU for its business association why is that ICANN/ ISOC/ ITEF/ RIRs etc escape your notice on similar counts. Parminder Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Katiza > > ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the > dictum that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away > from the sea shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea; > if the capital is close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to > the members of the Government, so there is greater likelihood of the > merchants corrupting the politicians). Telecom corporations have the > rare advantage of being seated alongside Government at the ITU. This > anomalous position makes it possible for the telecoms to exercise an > undue influence on governments, unnoticed by the Governments. > > The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be > standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established > standards for telegraphic and phone communication. > > Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom > corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes > in their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a > part of this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with > a business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part. > > This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions > of any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence > national and global policies related to all communication. ITU's core > concern is that it should govern and control all business of > communication. The ITU sets policies and rules in all communication: > Telegraphs, telephones, mobile phones and it also manages the RF > spectrum and satellite communications with the exception of the Internet. > > ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by > telecom companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take > charge of the Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not > happen as the Internet took shape as a free and open medium. The > Internet evolved to be way beyond the purview of the ITU and it shape > as a world on its own. > > In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it > couldn't succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered > the Civil Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not > decision) related to the Internet. > > This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization > with its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet > threatened the business models of telecom companies as technologies > such as email, VOIP began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found > a new breed of phone companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU > rules becoming phenomenally successful and an emerging threat to phone > company revenues. > > The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the > Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all > of which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet > architecture and Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So > the ITU tried to interject itself in the Internet Standards process. > The Critical Internet Resources could be brought under the ITU > umbrella by taking over a vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That > could ensure a technical dominance of the Internet by the ITU. But for > overall control, ITU needs to take over Internet Governance with the > argument that easily fools at least a few policy makers: that the ITU > is a well organized, 145 year old organization that has 191 national > governments as its members. It attempts to derive a position in policy > making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) by > interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in > reality a business union. > > The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an > attempt to position itself / retain its position in the policy arena. > The ITU asserts its position in policy making in subtle ways. For > instance, at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said " > We have no intention whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what > the ICANN is doing best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what > is the mandate of the ITU of policy-making, public-policy issues and > so on" > > That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that > policy making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate > and unequaled role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was > somehow allowed to slip in without a challenge at the IGF. > > At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation > system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation > of IP addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the > Secretary General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to > take over ICANN. > > ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet > Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes > the 'tensions'. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez > > > wrote: > > Greetings: > > Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. > > Thanks. > > > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > My constructive dissection: > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the > IGF as an institution; > > for example, we are content that it remain formally convened > by the UN > Secretary General, with an independent budget and a > Secretariat under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social > Affairs (UNDESA). We > do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a > different UN body. > > I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in > moving underneath > a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. > Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more > directly. (Spit > it out) > > Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the > IGF is to be > subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF > remain independent > of the UN umbrella. > > I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent > IGF for serval > reasons, > 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that > want to hose the > IGF > 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among > Equals' (among > all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, > underwritten by the MDG and > WSIS Declarations. > 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement > establishes the > IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. > ... > Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them > (Dese & Markus) > the fuel to fight. > I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in > fact now is the > time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de > La Chapelle puts > it can come later. > > Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin > too "Piercing the > corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' > of the UN > Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the > determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made > real-time and > transparent to All. > > I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel > They (the > UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with > US, in regards to > Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's > transactions/actions were > evidence of the fact. > --- > > * Piercing the corporate Veil > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Feb 16 22:10:23 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 08:40:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Google's fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) networks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7B5E1F.70709@itforchange.net> Rui I agree with your concerns Rui. We seem to moving towards a situation where 'google is the Internet' for many practical purposes. If we do remember the maxim of 'absolute power corrupts absolutely' we can see that we are headed towards major regulatory issues which need to be taken cognizance of early. However I do feel that in the US, which is illegitimately the digital regulation capital of the world, Google seems to have too much influence with the new ruling dispensation. In any case such is the hold of neoliberal beliefs that it is almost certain that - like in the case of the financial meltdown - the world will have to wait for major crises before the needed (democratic) global regulation of digital spaces begins to take shape. Parminder Rui Correia wrote: > Dear all > > Is this not going to atract anti-trust/ cross-ownership attention? > > Google has announced plans to build a number of trial > fibre-to-the-home (FTTH) networks in communities across the US, > claiming that it will provide broadband at downlink speeds of up to > 1Gbps. James Kelly, project manager on Google's infrastructure team, > said: 'We are doing this because we want to experiment with new ways > to make the web better and faster for everyone, allowing new > applications that aren't possible today. We are going to try out new > ways to build and operate fibre networks and share what we learn with > the world.' > > http://telecomafrica.blogspot.com/2010/02/google-to-build-fibre-optic-network.html > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 16 23:42:05 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2010 23:42:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs In-Reply-To: <146DC0C3-42FC-4A31-81BB-AE695A52EB37@psg.com> References: <1938615F87C24D83B59FF130C70DFC88@userPC> <0DBBCC24-6A13-4739-99A4-54FBCCDAA7D4@psg.com> ,<146DC0C3-42FC-4A31-81BB-AE695A52EB37@psg.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCD8@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I believe salaries of top officers of US non-profit entities, such as ICANN, is public information. This is done exactly so that there is some degree of transparency on where tax-exempt resources are going. Compared to other non-profit CEOs, ICANN's Pres is on high end but not off the charts. (Superstar of university presidents Gee at Ohio State makes $1.6m for example; most others are in $400k - $900k range.) Anyway, for myself I'm not sure what he did for ICANN to get the bonus, but aside from that this goes with territory of having ICANN operate as a US/California non-profit. Lee ________________________________________ From: Avri Doria [avri at psg.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 8:54 PM To: IGC Subject: Re: [governance] FW: [] ICANN President: $750,000+$195,000 bonus vs On 16 Feb 2010, at 16:22, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > I would have been embarrassed if I were an ICANN executive whose salary is discussed by the community in an open list and in public meetings and goes to press. My salary is meant to be a private arrangement between me and my employer (don't argue that the community is the employer, for this purpose I would argue that the Board is the employer ) and I would consider it a violation of my right to privacy. > actualyl, t his credit, he made the salary public. i am sure nothing i could say could embarrass the president of ICANN. his skin is a lot thicker than that. i expect. a. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 00:49:42 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:19:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: <4B7B527D.5080505@itforchange.net> References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> <4B7B527D.5080505@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello Parminder ISOC is my home, so is IETF by extension. I will say the same of ICANN and ICANN at-Large. I have looked at my own organizations critically for some of their shortcomings, but these are finer points and there aren't many. Definitely not something so glaring that one needs to think of ISOC / ICANN as organizations any where in the realm of ITU. With ISOC / ICANN it is a matter of imperfections that are internal and certainly no where in the nature of problems that are capable of causing harm to the Internet. With ITU, it is a problem of inconsiderately harmful commercial and political 'design's. Besides how do you know that it 'escaped' my attention, if there is anything that had to be noticed? I might have been expressive of the little shortcomings in-house and in that I wouldn't have cared to be diplomatic or pleasant about, but again these are finer concerns that pale in comparison with the scale of issues with ITU. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Parminder wrote: > There is a good amount of truth in your analysis Siva, but I do not > understand that when you so roundly criticize ITU for its business > association why is that ICANN/ ISOC/ ITEF/ RIRs etc escape your notice on > similar counts. Parminder > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Katiza > > ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the dictum > that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away from the sea > shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea; if the capital is > close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to the members of the > Government, so there is greater likelihood of the merchants corrupting the > politicians). Telecom corporations have the rare advantage of being seated > alongside Government at the ITU. This anomalous position makes it possible > for the telecoms to exercise an undue influence on governments, unnoticed by > the Governments. > > The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be > standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established > standards for telegraphic and phone communication. > > Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom > corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes in > their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a part of > this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with a > business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part. > > This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions of > any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence national and > global policies related to all communication. ITU's core concern is that it > should govern and control all business of communication. The ITU sets > policies and rules in all communication: Telegraphs, telephones, mobile > phones and it also manages the RF spectrum and satellite communications with > the exception of the Internet. > > ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by telecom > companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take charge of the > Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not happen as the Internet > took shape as a free and open medium. The Internet evolved to be way beyond > the purview of the ITU and it shape as a world on its own. > > In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it couldn't > succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered the Civil > Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not decision) related > to the Internet. > > This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization with > its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet threatened the > business models of telecom companies as technologies such as email, VOIP > began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found a new breed of phone > companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU rules becoming phenomenally > successful and an emerging threat to phone company revenues. > > The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the > Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all of > which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet architecture and > Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So the ITU tried to > interject itself in the Internet Standards process. The Critical Internet > Resources could be brought under the ITU umbrella by taking over a > vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That could ensure a technical dominance > of the Internet by the ITU. But for overall control, ITU needs to take over > Internet Governance with the argument that easily fools at least a few > policy makers: that the ITU is a well organized, 145 year old organization > that has 191 national governments as its members. It attempts to derive a > position in policy making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) > by interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in > reality a business union. > > The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an attempt to > position itself / retain its position in the policy arena. The ITU asserts > its position in policy making in subtle ways. For instance, at the IGF in > Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said " We have no intention > whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what the ICANN is doing > best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what is the mandate of the ITU > of policy-making, public-policy issues and so on” > > That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that policy > making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate and unequaled > role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was somehow allowed to > slip in without a challenge at the IGF. > > At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation > system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation of IP > addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the Secretary > General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to take over ICANN. > > ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet > Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes the > 'tensions'. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez < > katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > >> Greetings: >> >> Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: >> >> My constructive dissection: >>> >>> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >>>> institution; >>>> >>> for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN >>> Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >>> contract >>> with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs >>> (UNDESA). We >>> do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN >>> body. >>> >>> I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving >>> underneath >>> a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. >>> Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more directly. >>> (Spit >>> it out) >>> >>> Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is to be >>> subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain >>> independent >>> of the UN umbrella. >>> >>> I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF for >>> serval >>> reasons, >>> 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to hose >>> the >>> IGF >>> 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among Equals' >>> (among >>> all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by the >>> MDG and >>> WSIS Declarations. >>> 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement establishes >>> the >>> IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. >>> ... >>> Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese & >>> Markus) >>> the fuel to fight. >>> I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact now is >>> the >>> time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La >>> Chapelle puts >>> it can come later. >>> >>> Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too >>> "Piercing the >>> corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the UN >>> Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the >>> determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real-time and >>> transparent to All. >>> >>> I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They (the >>> UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in >>> regards to >>> Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/actions >>> were >>> evidence of the fact. >>> --- >>> >>> * Piercing the corporate Veil >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Feb 17 04:07:09 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:07:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: Hi Siva, Thanks for laying this out. While we've had bits and pieces of discussion about the ITU on this list over the past seven years, in general it's an arena that many folks have less experience with than IGF and ICANN, so this is helpful. I'd like though to raise a concern about one dimension of your depiction—the notion that ITU is just a business cartel, "of which unwittingly Governments are a part." As someone who's done a great deal of research and writing on the ITU over the past 30 years I have to say I find this rather misleading. ITU is and always has been preeminently an intergovernmental organization. Industry groups have been allowed to participate in some of its bodies over the years subject to various limitations, and for many decades some of them (particularly corporate users as represented inter alia by the ICC and INTUG) were quite unhappy with these procedures, and indeed with the whole market-regulatory, pro-monopoly orientation of ITU policy. Starting in the 1980s various reform processes began to inter alia enhance business participation and liberalize long-standing regulations and market access limitations, and now companies can join the three sectors as members. In this context, the major national telecom carriers (former PTTs) and their preferred manufacturers exercise a good deal of influence on the design of technical and operational standards. Nevertheless, the overarching policy frameworks within which such work is conducted remain intergovernmental and treaty based. This is especially so on the radio spectrum side of the house. With regard to the private sector, the important point is that business is not an undifferentiated mass. There are a lot of different factions and interests, and those that gather in the ITU historically heralded mostly from the PSTN environment. In contrast, ITU has had a great deal of difficulty attracting and keeping businesses from the Internet environment that have their roots in identifiers, applications, and so on, and has had tense and sometimes conflictual relations with the whole Internet administrative nexus. So there are multiple lines of tension at work here—within industry, between governments and some industry, between governments and their preferred firms on the one hand and CS and the Internet technical community on the other, between models and visions of the Internet and the global info infrastructure more generally, and so on. In all of this, governments are hardly the unwitting dupes of one industry faction; there's rather a close, symbiotic relationship based on shared interests which, alas, have been rather different from those of many people and orgs indigenous to the Internet environment. To some extent that may be changing now, at least with respect to security issues, where one finds a lot of big players from the net space getting actively engaged and vested in the ITU process. I'm sure you know all this, just thought it was worth a friendly amendment to avoid misunderstandings. Best, Bill On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello Katiza > > ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the dictum that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away from the sea shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea; if the capital is close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to the members of the Government, so there is greater likelihood of the merchants corrupting the politicians). Telecom corporations have the rare advantage of being seated alongside Government at the ITU. This anomalous position makes it possible for the telecoms to exercise an undue influence on governments, unnoticed by the Governments. > > The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established standards for telegraphic and phone communication. > > Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes in their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a part of this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with a business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part. > > This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions of any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence national and global policies related to all communication. ITU's core concern is that it should govern and control all business of communication. The ITU sets policies and rules in all communication: Telegraphs, telephones, mobile phones and it also manages the RF spectrum and satellite communications with the exception of the Internet. > > ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by telecom companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take charge of the Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not happen as the Internet took shape as a free and open medium. The Internet evolved to be way beyond the purview of the ITU and it shape as a world on its own. > > In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it couldn't succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered the Civil Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not decision) related to the Internet. > > This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization with its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet threatened the business models of telecom companies as technologies such as email, VOIP began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found a new breed of phone companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU rules becoming phenomenally successful and an emerging threat to phone company revenues. > > The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all of which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet architecture and Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So the ITU tried to interject itself in the Internet Standards process. The Critical Internet Resources could be brought under the ITU umbrella by taking over a vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That could ensure a technical dominance of the Internet by the ITU. But for overall control, ITU needs to take over Internet Governance with the argument that easily fools at least a few policy makers: that the ITU is a well organized, 145 year old organization that has 191 national governments as its members. It attempts to derive a position in policy making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) by interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in reality a business union. > > The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an attempt to position itself / retain its position in the policy arena. The ITU asserts its position in policy making in subtle ways. For instance, at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said " We have no intention whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what the ICANN is doing best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what is the mandate of the ITU of policy-making, public-policy issues and so on” > > That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that policy making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate and unequaled role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was somehow allowed to slip in without a challenge at the IGF. > > At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation of IP addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the Secretary General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to take over ICANN. > > ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes the 'tensions'. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Greetings: > > Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. > > Thanks. > > > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > My constructive dissection: > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; > for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN > Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We > do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body. > > I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath > a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. > Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more directly. (Spit > it out) > > Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is to be > subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain independent > of the UN umbrella. > > I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF for serval > reasons, > 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to hose the > IGF > 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among Equals' (among > all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by the MDG and > WSIS Declarations. > 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement establishes the > IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. > ... > Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese & Markus) > the fuel to fight. > I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact now is the > time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La Chapelle puts > it can come later. > > Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too "Piercing the > corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the UN > Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the > determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real-time and > transparent to All. > > I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They (the > UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in regards to > Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/actions were > evidence of the fact. > --- > > * Piercing the corporate Veil > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Feb 17 04:17:45 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:17:45 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD References: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> <20100216105249.6F7309100B@npogroups.org> <4B7A9AD1.5020708@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068A0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 1. I support the letter with the additions and clarifications, made by several people (in particular with the role of ECOSOC which was not fully precise in my first posting). 2. The letter should be written as an open letter and addressed to UN Secretary General Ban Kin Moon. According to the Tunis Agenda it is the SG (and not his deputy) who is responsible for the whole process. 3. I would enacourage also IGC members to approach/lobby their national delegates in ECOSOC, to send them the open IGC letter and to explain the background why the strengthening and further enhancing (and not weakening and reducing) of the principle of multistakehooderism is crucial for the future of Internet Governance. 4. I would also talk to media to take this as a story. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Feb 17 04:24:16 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:24:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] FYI References: <808a83f61002161647h700980e0mee195c6d84c996a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0689F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Here are two interesting links for CS friends engaged in Human Rights and the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles: 1. The Chair of the Global Alliance for ICT4D (GAID), Mr. Tarek Abu Ghazaleh, has proposed in a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Kin Moon the elaboration of a "UN Declaration on Rights in the Information Age". Here is an excerpt from the Press Release: "The Chairman also presented to the Secretary-General several important new initiatives. Among these was a "Declaration on Rights in the Information Age" that is intended to promote "ICT rights" and encourage governments to grant their citizens full access to effective participation in the emerging global Information Society. Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh further shared with the Secretary-General his initiative on launching work on the urgent task of using the information and communication technologies for the Protection of Life and Property." 2. A Group called "Iceland Modern Media Initiative" (IMMI) wants to turn Iceland into a Safe Harbour Model to protect information rights globally. A parliamentary resolution is under discussion. http://immi.is/?l=en&p=vision 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 lisa at global-partners.co.uk Wed Feb 17 04:38:15 2010 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 09:38:15 -0000 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0689F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <808a83f61002161647h700980e0mee195c6d84c996a0@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0689F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A03445B4@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Thanks for this Wolfgang. I'll forward onto the IRP list. It would be good if we could coordinate with GAID on the IRP/APC Charter for human rights on the internet. It seems that Rights on the internet/in the information society seem to be receiving more attention in quite a few different arenas at the moment. I wonder if/how we can all coordinate... Lisa -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: 17 February 2010 09:24 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] FYI Here are two interesting links for CS friends engaged in Human Rights and the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles: 1. The Chair of the Global Alliance for ICT4D (GAID), Mr. Tarek Abu Ghazaleh, has proposed in a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Kin Moon the elaboration of a "UN Declaration on Rights in the Information Age". Here is an excerpt from the Press Release: "The Chairman also presented to the Secretary-General several important new initiatives. Among these was a "Declaration on Rights in the Information Age" that is intended to promote "ICT rights" and encourage governments to grant their citizens full access to effective participation in the emerging global Information Society. Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh further shared with the Secretary-General his initiative on launching work on the urgent task of using the information and communication technologies for the Protection of Life and Property." 2. A Group called "Iceland Modern Media Initiative" (IMMI) wants to turn Iceland into a Safe Harbour Model to protect information rights globally. A parliamentary resolution is under discussion. http://immi.is/?l=en&p=vision Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Wed Feb 17 04:54:00 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:54:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A03445B4@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> References: <808a83f61002161647h700980e0mee195c6d84c996a0@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0689F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A03445B4@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: Hi Per previous discussions, I hope we will not conflate GAID and IGF issues and processes. While Talal suggested merging the two in Sharm, there are significant differences of focus etc that need to preserved. Bill On Feb 17, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for this Wolfgang. I'll forward onto the IRP list. It would be good if we could coordinate with GAID on the IRP/APC Charter for human rights on the internet. It seems that Rights on the internet/in the information society seem to be receiving more attention in quite a few different arenas at the moment. I wonder if/how we can all coordinate... > > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: 17 February 2010 09:24 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] FYI > > Here are two interesting links for CS friends engaged in Human Rights and the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles: > > > > 1. The Chair of the Global Alliance for ICT4D (GAID), Mr. Tarek Abu Ghazaleh, has proposed in a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Kin Moon the elaboration of a "UN Declaration on Rights in the Information Age". Here is an excerpt from the Press Release: > > > > "The Chairman also presented to the Secretary-General several important new initiatives. Among these was a "Declaration on Rights in the Information Age" that is intended to promote "ICT rights" and encourage governments to grant their citizens full access to effective participation in the emerging global Information Society. Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh further shared with the Secretary-General his initiative on launching work on the urgent task of using the information and communication technologies for the Protection of Life and Property." > > > > 2. A Group called "Iceland Modern Media Initiative" (IMMI) wants to turn Iceland into a Safe Harbour Model to protect information rights globally. A parliamentary resolution is under discussion. > > http://immi.is/?l=en&p=vision > > > > > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Feb 17 04:57:30 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:57:30 +0800 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD Message-ID: I think I have incorporated everyone's suggestions in what appears below. If not, let me know. If all is well, my feeling is that we can probably move swiftly to a consensus call. If not, please contribute specific language that would address your dissatisfaction. When the consensus call is made, responding to feedback from last time, I propose to experiment with Web-based polling, rather than the usual stream of "YES" and "NO" emails to the list (though the list can and should still be used for comments during the consensus call period). If there are any objections to that, please say so now. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Dear Sir, As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to those of several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation meeting. This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result of this. Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and assessment work tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. Its multi-stakeholder process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. A similar approach has also resulted in success in other forums: for example, national and regional IGFs that have brought valuable contributions to the debates and dialogues in the main IGF. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. This makes it impossible to regard ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution. Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by non-governmental stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Thank you for your consideration. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lisa at global-partners.co.uk Wed Feb 17 05:24:33 2010 From: lisa at global-partners.co.uk (Lisa Horner) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 10:24:33 -0000 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: References: <808a83f61002161647h700980e0mee195c6d84c996a0@mail.gmail.com> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0689F@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A03445B4@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A03445C0@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> But that doesn't rule out coordination? -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 17 February 2010 09:54 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] FYI Hi Per previous discussions, I hope we will not conflate GAID and IGF issues and processes. While Talal suggested merging the two in Sharm, there are significant differences of focus etc that need to preserved. Bill On Feb 17, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for this Wolfgang. I'll forward onto the IRP list. It would be good if we could coordinate with GAID on the IRP/APC Charter for human rights on the internet. It seems that Rights on the internet/in the information society seem to be receiving more attention in quite a few different arenas at the moment. I wonder if/how we can all coordinate... > > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: 17 February 2010 09:24 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] FYI > > Here are two interesting links for CS friends engaged in Human Rights and the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles: > > > > 1. The Chair of the Global Alliance for ICT4D (GAID), Mr. Tarek Abu Ghazaleh, has proposed in a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Kin Moon the elaboration of a "UN Declaration on Rights in the Information Age". Here is an excerpt from the Press Release: > > > > "The Chairman also presented to the Secretary-General several important new initiatives. Among these was a "Declaration on Rights in the Information Age" that is intended to promote "ICT rights" and encourage governments to grant their citizens full access to effective participation in the emerging global Information Society. Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh further shared with the Secretary-General his initiative on launching work on the urgent task of using the information and communication technologies for the Protection of Life and Property." > > > > 2. A Group called "Iceland Modern Media Initiative" (IMMI) wants to turn Iceland into a Safe Harbour Model to protect information rights globally. A parliamentary resolution is under discussion. > > http://immi.is/?l=en&p=vision > > > > > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Feb 17 07:08:57 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:38:57 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> Jeremy, You may consider these comments too late in the day and may ignore them. I havent reached Bangalore yet after the open consultations and thus the delay. However if you are still considering major changes i would suggest that we make a simple though strong statement that IGF review should be an elaborate process with MS involvement, and it is but appropriate that UN Secy Gen's recommendations based on the formal consultations with IGF participants at Sharm is presented to the CSTD before it is reviewed by ECOSOC and then the UN Gen Assembly which makes the final decision. CSTD clearly has a formal role in WSIS follow up as per section 105 of TA, and IGF review is obviously a part of WSIS review. We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater multistakeholder (MS) involvement. However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. I am really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums in Geneva/ New York. Does someone has full information on this? I do know that a temporary window was created to involve all WSIS accredited organizations (when does this end) but perhaps not much more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an observer and speaks only in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not formally involved in drafting processes, though informal practices may operate (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should push it too much. In fact, in making the statement it might be best to stress the CSTD factor, since CSTD is formally assigned to do WSIS follow up and not so much the MS point (which should follow form implication) because TA para 76 clearly says that UN Secy Gen after formal consultations with IGF participants will 'make recommendations to the UN membership'. We can say that CSTD, like ECOSOC is extension of the UN membership review system. parminder Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I think I have incorporated everyone's suggestions in what appears > below. If not, let me know. If all is well, my feeling is that we > can probably move swiftly to a consensus call. If not, please > contribute specific language that would address your dissatisfaction. > > When the consensus call is made, responding to feedback from last > time, I propose to experiment with Web-based polling, rather than the > usual stream of "YES" and "NO" emails to the list (though the list can > and should still be used for comments during the consensus call > period). If there are any objections to that, please say so now. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED > NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its > unique multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet > Governance Caucus writes to express a concern about what we see as a > potential weakening of that process, in the revelation at the last IGF > open consultation meeting on 10 February that your recommendations on > the continuation of the IGF will not be reviewed by the CSTD > (Commission on Science and Technology for Development). In raising > this concern, we are joining our voice to those of several governments > who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation meeting. > > This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the > Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and > was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet > Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) > approach". The acceptance of civil society as an "equal parter" (in > their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was paved > by the constructive and substantial work the civil society > representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in > the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 > and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in > the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to the results > of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of > the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result of > this. > > Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, > including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review and > assessment work tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, > which for this purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the > multistakeholder approach". (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The "opening" > of the CSTD to other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions > 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these > decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private > sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the > CSTD. > > With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC > resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments > on the performance of the IGF. Its multi-stakeholder process, like > that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and > successful. A similar approach has also resulted in success in other > forums: for example, national and regional IGFs that have brought > valuable contributions to the debates and dialogues in the main IGF. > There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process > on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > > In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder > institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is > limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by > ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at > WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the > private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. This makes > it impossible to regard ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution. > > Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open > and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental > stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil > society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the > ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate > started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > > We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting > your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for > consideration at its May meeting, where they will be open for review > by non-governmental stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique > multi-stakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, > civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the > continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General > Assembly might well be reduced. > > We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support > for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in > Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). > > Thank you for your consideration. > > -- > > *Jeremy Malcolm > Project Coordinator* > Consumers International > Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > *CI is 50* > Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement > in 2010. > Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect > consumer rights around the world. > _http://www.consumersinternational.org/50_ > > Read our email confidentiality notice > . > Don't print this email unless necessary. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Feb 17 07:23:44 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:23:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hi On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Parminder wrote: [snip] > We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater multistakeholder (MS) involvement. > > However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. I am really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums in Geneva/ New York. Does someone has full information on this? I do know that a temporary window was created to involve all WSIS accredited organizations (when does this end) but perhaps not much more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an observer and speaks only in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not formally involved in drafting processes, though informal practices may operate (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should push it too much. I agree, we can't call CSTD a MS institution, it's an intergovernmental that has made special provisions to allow some CS involved in one area of activity some scope for involvement that exceeds what is possible in ECOSOC. BD > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> >> In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. This makes it impossible to regard ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 08:28:15 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 18:58:15 +0530 Subject: [governance] FYI In-Reply-To: <43E4CB4D84F7434DB4539B0744B009A03445C0@DATASRV.GLOBAL.local> Message-ID: <50F33D6E23A84E779E10ACD838A17A41@userPC> I'm curious if anyone knows or has been involved at all in GAID discussions pursuant to Talal's initiative... The last I heard was that the GAID was undergoing some internal re-examination concerning its overall future...long stories...and this initiative, however, interesting and useful certainly didn't surface in any of GAID venues of which I'm a part... MBG -----Original Message----- From: Lisa Horner [mailto:lisa at global-partners.co.uk] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 3:55 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] FYI But that doesn't rule out coordination? -----Original Message----- From: William Drake [mailto:william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch] Sent: 17 February 2010 09:54 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lisa Horner Subject: Re: [governance] FYI Hi Per previous discussions, I hope we will not conflate GAID and IGF issues and processes. While Talal suggested merging the two in Sharm, there are significant differences of focus etc that need to preserved. Bill On Feb 17, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Lisa Horner wrote: > Thanks for this Wolfgang. I'll forward onto the IRP list. It would > be good if we could coordinate with GAID on the IRP/APC Charter for > human rights on the internet. It seems that Rights on the internet/in > the information society seem to be receiving more attention in quite a > few different arenas at the moment. I wonder if/how we can all > coordinate... > > Lisa > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: 17 February 2010 09:24 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] FYI > > Here are two interesting links for CS friends engaged in Human Rights > and the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles: > > > > 1. The Chair of the Global Alliance for ICT4D (GAID), Mr. Tarek Abu Ghazaleh, has proposed in a meeting with UN Secretary General Ban Kin Moon the elaboration of a "UN Declaration on Rights in the Information Age". Here is an excerpt from the Press Release: > > > > "The Chairman also presented to the Secretary-General several > important new initiatives. Among these was a "Declaration on Rights > in the Information Age" that is intended to promote "ICT rights" and > encourage governments to grant their citizens full access to > effective participation in the emerging global Information Society. > Mr. Abu-Ghazaleh further shared with the Secretary-General his > initiative on launching work on the urgent task of using the > information and communication technologies for the Protection of Life > and Property." > > > > 2. A Group called "Iceland Modern Media Initiative" (IMMI) wants to > turn Iceland into a Safe Harbour Model to protect information rights > globally. A parliamentary resolution is under discussion. > > http://immi.is/?l=en&p=vision > > > > > > Wolfgang > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html *********************************************************** ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Feb 17 09:05:29 2010 From: vanda at uol.com.br (Vanda UOL) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 12:05:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068A0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <0F660679-952B-4761-B064-19F92DA15A81@ciroap.org> <20100216105249.6F7309100B@npogroups.org> <4B7A9AD1.5020708@cafonso.ca> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068A0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <003901caafda$471ec290$d55c47b0$@com.br> Good idea Wolfgang, I will also send to members of our embassy in Genève, to make sure the doc will circulate. best Vanda Scartezini NEXTi_v1.jpg an ICANN ALS tel: + 55 11 3266.6253 mob:+ 55 11 8181.1464 www.executivasdeti.blogspot.com -----Original Message----- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 7:18 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro; ca at cafonso.ca; governance at lists.cpsr.org; williams.deirdre at gmail.com Subject: AW: [governance] Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD 1. I support the letter with the additions and clarifications, made by several people (in particular with the role of ECOSOC which was not fully precise in my first posting). 2. The letter should be written as an open letter and addressed to UN Secretary General Ban Kin Moon. According to the Tunis Agenda it is the SG (and not his deputy) who is responsible for the whole process. 3. I would enacourage also IGC members to approach/lobby their national delegates in ECOSOC, to send them the open IGC letter and to explain the background why the strengthening and further enhancing (and not weakening and reducing) of the principle of multistakehooderism is crucial for the future of Internet Governance. 4. I would also talk to media to take this as a story. Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image003.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1570 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Wed Feb 17 09:06:09 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:06:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net>, Message-ID: Yes, I think Parminder has a valid point here. Our strongest argument is the procedural one. Review and assessment of WSIS outcomes have *always* gone through CSTD, why not now? Standing on the precedent is an age-old bureaucratic device, and we might use it here yto our advantage. We could also point out that special provisions have been made at CSTD to accomodate other stakeholders as per WSIS principles, but we should not get in the argument about the ECOSOC. Yrjö From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:23:44 +0100 CC: jeremy at ciroap.org To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder at itforchange.net Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Hi On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Parminder wrote: [snip] We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater multistakeholder (MS) involvement. However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. I am really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums in Geneva/ New York. Does someone has full information on this? I do know that a temporary window was created to involve all WSIS accredited organizations (when does this end) but perhaps not much more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an observer and speaks only in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not formally involved in drafting processes, though informal practices may operate (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should push it too much. I agree, we can't call CSTD a MS institution, it's an intergovernmental that has made special provisions to allow some CS involved in one area of activity some scope for involvement that exceeds what is possible in ECOSOC. BD Jeremy Malcolm wrote: In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. This makes it impossible to regard ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution. _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 10:03:11 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:03:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: I agree with Yrjö's point. I also wonder about the writing style of the statement. I know long sentences are the norm for bureaucratic documents :-), but short simple sentences communicate much more efficiently, particularly when one is communicating across languages? Deirdre On 17 February 2010 10:06, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > Yes, I think Parminder has a valid point here. Our strongest argument is > the procedural one. Review and assessment of WSIS outcomes have *always* > gone through CSTD, why not now? Standing on the precedent is an age-old > bureaucratic device, and we might use it here yto our advantage. We could > also point out that special provisions have been made at CSTD to accomodate > other stakeholders as per WSIS principles, but we should not get in the > argument about the ECOSOC. > > Yrjö > > ------------------------------ > From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:23:44 +0100 > CC: jeremy at ciroap.org > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder at itforchange.net > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > > Hi > > On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Parminder wrote: > > [snip] > > We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater > multistakeholder (MS) involvement. > > However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. I am > really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums in Geneva/ New > York. Does someone has full information on this? I do know that a temporary > window was created to involve all WSIS accredited organizations (when does > this end) but perhaps not much more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an > observer and speaks only in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not > formally involved in drafting processes, though informal practices may > operate (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should > push it too much. > > > I agree, we can't call CSTD a MS institution, it's an intergovernmental > that has made special provisions to allow some CS involved in one area of > activity some scope for involvement that exceeds what is possible in ECOSOC. > > BD > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder > institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited > and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More > importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are > not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no > representation within ECOSOC at all. This makes it impossible to regard > ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution. > > > > ------------------------------ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Feb 17 10:37:37 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:37:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: One point in Parm's text (with which I agree) is the static limitation of having to be "WSIS-accredited ngo" in order to be formally involved. In four years hundreds of relevant CS players appeared -- any of us can point to examples. Another outdated constraint which should be dropped. --c.a. enviado via iPhone On 17/02/2010, at 10:08, Parminder wrote: > Jeremy, > > You may consider these comments too late in the day and may ignore > them. I havent reached Bangalore yet after the open consultations > and thus the delay. > > However if you are still considering major changes i would suggest > that we make a simple though strong statement that IGF review should > be an elaborate process with MS involvement, and it is but > appropriate that UN Secy Gen's recommendations based on the formal > consultations with IGF participants at Sharm is presented to the > CSTD before it is reviewed by ECOSOC and then the UN Gen Assembly > which makes the final decision. CSTD clearly has a formal role in > WSIS follow up as per section 105 of TA, and IGF review is obviously > a part of WSIS review. > > We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater > multistakeholder (MS) involvement. > > However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. > I am really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums > in Geneva/ New York. Does someone has full information on this? I do > know that a temporary window was created to involve all WSIS > accredited organizations (when does this end) but perhaps not much > more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an observer and speaks only > in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not formally involved in > drafting processes, though informal practices may operate > (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should > push it too much. > > In fact, in making the statement it might be best to stress the CSTD > factor, since CSTD is formally assigned to do WSIS follow up and not > so much the MS point (which should follow form implication) because > TA para 76 clearly says that UN Secy Gen after formal consultations > with IGF participants will 'make recommendations to the UN > membership'. We can say that CSTD, like ECOSOC is extension of the > UN membership review system. > > parminder > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> I think I have incorporated everyone's suggestions in what appears >> below. If not, let me know. If all is well, my feeling is that we >> can probably move swiftly to a consensus call. If not, please >> contribute specific language that would address your dissatisfaction. >> >> When the consensus call is made, responding to feedback from last >> time, I propose to experiment with Web-based polling, rather than >> the usual stream of "YES" and "NO" emails to the list (though the >> list can and should still be used for comments during the consensus >> call period). If there are any objections to that, please say so >> now. >> >> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED >> NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON >> >> Dear Sir, >> >> As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and >> its unique multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet >> Governance Caucus writes to express a concern about what we see as >> a potential weakening of that process, in the revelation at the >> last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February that your >> recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will not be reviewed >> by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for >> Development). In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to >> those of several governments who spoke to similar effect at that >> open consultation meeting. >> >> This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the >> Tunis Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS >> and was in particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet >> Governance in contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) >> approach". The acceptance of civil society as an "equal parter" (in >> their specific role) was a big step for civil society. This was >> paved by the constructive and substantial work the civil society >> representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular >> in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in >> December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States >> (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the >> contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet >> Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder >> discussion platform" was the result of this. >> >> Responsibility for system-wide follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, >> including the IGF, was granted to ECOSOC, with the actual review >> and assessment work tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional >> commissions, which for this purpose was to be strengthened "taking >> into account the multistakeholder approach". (Tunis Agenda, para >> 105). The "opening" of the CSTD to other stakeholders was >> formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and >> 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, >> academic entities and private sector representatives were invited >> to participate in the work of the CSTD. >> >> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC >> resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including >> assessments on the performance of the IGF. Its multi-stakeholder >> process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as >> innovative and successful. A similar approach has also resulted in >> success in other forums: for example, national and regional IGFs >> that have brought valuable contributions to the debates and >> dialogues in the main IGF. There is therefore no reason for a >> sudden departure from this process on the question of the >> continuation of the IGF. >> >> In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder >> institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is >> limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration >> by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were >> accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with >> ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC >> at all. This makes it impossible to regard ECOSOC as a truly multi- >> stakeholder institution. >> >> Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open >> and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental >> stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when >> civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room >> after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the >> real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten >> PrepComs to change this. >> >> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by >> transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to >> the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting, where they will be >> open for review by non-governmental stakeholders, as befits the >> review of a unique multi-stakeholder institution. Should it not be >> possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy >> of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately >> made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. >> >> We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our >> support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder >> forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, >> located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat >> under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and >> Social Affairs (UNDESA). >> >> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> -- >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 14:44:55 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:14:55 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: Hello Bill Drake, On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 2:37 PM, William Drake < william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > Hi Siva, > > Thanks for laying this out. While we've had bits and pieces of discussion > about the ITU on this list over the past seven years, in general it's an > arena that many folks have less experience with than IGF and ICANN, so this > is helpful. I'd like though to raise a concern about one dimension of your > depiction—the notion that ITU is just a business cartel, "of which > unwittingly Governments are a part." As someone who's done a great deal of > research and writing on the ITU over the past 30 years I have to say I find > this rather misleading. ITU is and always has been preeminently an > intergovernmental organization. Industry groups have been allowed to > participate in some of its bodies over the years subject to various > limitations, and for many decades some of them (particularly corporate users > as represented inter alia by the ICC and INTUG) were quite unhappy with > these procedures, and indeed with the whole market-regulatory, pro-monopoly > orientation of ITU policy. Starting in the 1980s various reform processes > began to inter alia enhance business participation and liberalize > long-standing regulations and market access limitations, and now companies > can join the three sectors as members. > Thank you for correcting me on the finer details. Certainly you know a lot more and you are in a position to authoritatively talk about the constitution of ITU. Whether or not it is preeminently a business organization, the participation of business alongside Government at the ITU places the telecoms in a position to influence Government Policy. My point was that the original Business members of the ITU were Governments, who came together not as Governments, but more as 'owners' of PTTs. With reduced involvement of Governments in PTTs, the participation of Governments did not correspondingly come down within the ITU. I still do not fully agree that the ITU is preeminently an inter-governmental organization because the ITU continues to be driven more by commercial pursuits than by non-commercial public interest. > In this context, the major national telecom carriers (former PTTs) and > their preferred manufacturers exercise a good deal of influence on the > design of technical and operational standards. > This contrasts with the Internet standards making process which is open and participative. There is some business participation in that Internet Standards process also, but the process is kept open for anyone to participate and challenge. At the ITU it is a closed process. > Nevertheless, the overarching policy frameworks within which such work is > conducted remain intergovernmental and treaty based. > Yes, but the business members of ITU are formal or informal insiders to the intergovernmental telecom policy making process, and in a position to effectively lobby and influence policy decisions. > This is especially so on the radio spectrum side of the house. > Spectrum allocation hasn't been a fair and transparent exercise, and the Industry has been resistant to the idea of an open spectrum eco-system. For the sake of argument, if we consider a situation where Civil Society partnered with Governments instead of telecoms, we would have made greater progress toward an open spectrum policy. But this does not happen when inter-governmental policy is made under the influence of business. > With regard to the private sector, the important point is that business is > not an undifferentiated mass. There are a lot of different factions and > interests, and those that gather in the ITU historically heralded mostly > from the PSTN environment. In contrast, ITU has had a great deal of > difficulty attracting and keeping businesses from the Internet environment > because businesses from the Internet environment are wary of the telecom business models being imposed on the Internet. > that have their roots in identifiers, applications, and so on, and has had > tense and sometimes conflictual relations with the whole Internet > administrative nexus. > > So there are multiple lines of tension at work here—within industry, > between governments and some industry, between governments and their > preferred firms on the one hand and CS and the Internet technical community > on the other, between models and visions of the Internet and the global info > infrastructure more generally, and so on. > The depth of this analysis comes from your research and understanding of the ITU over the past 30 years. I agree with your analysis that there are multiple lines of tension at work here. In all of this, governments are hardly the unwitting dupes of one industry > faction; > Agreed. Part of the reason why I said that was because I didn't want to assume that Governments knowingly and willingly allowed policy to be influenced by the business members of the ITU. > there's rather a close, symbiotic relationship based on shared interests > >From such a relationship, theoretically a lot of good could happen, but in reality, it is a situation of a persistent danger government policy being influenced and steered in the direction desired by commercial interests. > which, alas, have been rather different from those of many people and orgs > indigenous to the Internet environment. > > To some extent that may be changing now, at least with respect to security > issues, where one finds a lot of big players from the net space getting > actively engaged and vested in the ITU process. > ITU's security agenda requires special attention and a separate analysis. In short its Security focus appeals to the Governments; Conversely, the Security concerns of Governments suit the business participants of the ITU. The combined result is that there is an exaggerated focus on Security which causes harm to the Internet. > > I'm sure you know all this, just thought it was worth a friendly amendment > to avoid misunderstandings. > Thank You. I have learnt more about the ITU from you and stand corrected on some finer points, but in its essence, all that I have said about the ITU remains valid Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > Best, > > Bill > > On Feb 16, 2010, at 8:30 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > Hello Katiza > > ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the dictum > that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away from the sea > shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea; if the capital is > close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to the members of the > Government, so there is greater likelihood of the merchants corrupting the > politicians). Telecom corporations have the rare advantage of being seated > alongside Government at the ITU. This anomalous position makes it possible > for the telecoms to exercise an undue influence on governments, unnoticed by > the Governments. > > The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be > standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established > standards for telegraphic and phone communication. > > Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom > corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes in > their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a part of > this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with a > business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part. > > This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions of > any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence national and > global policies related to all communication. ITU's core concern is that it > should govern and control all business of communication. The ITU sets > policies and rules in all communication: Telegraphs, telephones, mobile > phones and it also manages the RF spectrum and satellite communications with > the exception of the Internet. > > ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by telecom > companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take charge of the > Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not happen as the Internet > took shape as a free and open medium. The Internet evolved to be way beyond > the purview of the ITU and it shape as a world on its own. > > In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it couldn't > succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered the Civil > Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not decision) related > to the Internet. > > This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization with > its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet threatened the > business models of telecom companies as technologies such as email, VOIP > began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found a new breed of phone > companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU rules becoming phenomenally > successful and an emerging threat to phone company revenues. > > The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the > Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all of > which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet architecture and > Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So the ITU tried to > interject itself in the Internet Standards process. The Critical Internet > Resources could be brought under the ITU umbrella by taking over a > vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That could ensure a technical dominance > of the Internet by the ITU. But for overall control, ITU needs to take over > Internet Governance with the argument that easily fools at least a few > policy makers: that the ITU is a well organized, 145 year old organization > that has 191 national governments as its members. It attempts to derive a > position in policy making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) > by interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in > reality a business union. > > The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an attempt to > position itself / retain its position in the policy arena. The ITU asserts > its position in policy making in subtle ways. For instance, at the IGF in > Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said " We have no intention > whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what the ICANN is doing > best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what is the mandate of the ITU > of policy-making, public-policy issues and so on” > > That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that policy > making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate and unequaled > role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was somehow allowed to > slip in without a challenge at the IGF. > > At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation > system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation of IP > addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the Secretary > General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to take over ICANN. > > ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet > Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes the > 'tensions'. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez < > katitza at datos-personales.org> wrote: > >> Greetings: >> >> Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: >> >> My constructive dissection: >>> >>> None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an >>>> institution; >>>> >>> for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN >>> Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >>> contract >>> with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs >>> (UNDESA). We >>> do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN >>> body. >>> >>> I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving >>> underneath >>> a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. >>> Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more directly. >>> (Spit >>> it out) >>> >>> Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is to be >>> subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain >>> independent >>> of the UN umbrella. >>> >>> I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF for >>> serval >>> reasons, >>> 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to hose >>> the >>> IGF >>> 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among Equals' >>> (among >>> all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by the >>> MDG and >>> WSIS Declarations. >>> 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement establishes >>> the >>> IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. >>> ... >>> Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese & >>> Markus) >>> the fuel to fight. >>> I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact now is >>> the >>> time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La >>> Chapelle puts >>> it can come later. >>> >>> Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too >>> "Piercing the >>> corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the UN >>> Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the >>> determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real-time and >>> transparent to All. >>> >>> I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They (the >>> UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in >>> regards to >>> Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/actions >>> were >>> evidence of the fact. >>> --- >>> >>> * Piercing the corporate Veil >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > *********************************************************** > William J. Drake > Senior Associate > Centre for International Governance > Graduate Institute of International and > Development Studies > Geneva, Switzerland > william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch > www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html > *********************************************************** > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 17 16:45:34 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:45:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> , Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I further agree with Deirdre and Yrjo. And I am happy Deirdre volunteered to do a quick revision of the doc for readability, clarity & conciseness : ) ________________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams [williams.deirdre at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing I agree with Yrjö's point. I also wonder about the writing style of the statement. I know long sentences are the norm for bureaucratic documents :-), but short simple sentences communicate much more efficiently, particularly when one is communicating across languages? Deirdre On 17 February 2010 10:06, Yrjö Länsipuro > wrote: Yes, I think Parminder has a valid point here. Our strongest argument is the procedural one. Review and assessment of WSIS outcomes have *always* gone through CSTD, why not now? Standing on the precedent is an age-old bureaucratic device, and we might use it here yto our advantage. We could also point out that special provisions have been made at CSTD to accomodate other stakeholders as per WSIS principles, but we should not get in the argument about the ECOSOC. Yrjö ________________________________ From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:23:44 +0100 CC: jeremy at ciroap.org To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; parminder at itforchange.net Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Hi On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Parminder wrote: [snip] We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater multistakeholder (MS) involvement. However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. I am really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums in Geneva/ New York. Does someone has full information on this? I do know that a temporary window was created to involve all WSIS accredited organizations (when does this end) but perhaps not much more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an observer and speaks only in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not formally involved in drafting processes, though informal practices may operate (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should push it too much. I agree, we can't call CSTD a MS institution, it's an intergovernmental that has made special provisions to allow some CS involved in one area of activity some scope for involvement that exceeds what is possible in ECOSOC. BD Jeremy Malcolm wrote: In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. This makes it impossible to regard ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution. ________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 18:52:56 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:52:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Leaned on by Lee to put my money where my mouth is :-) I offer this revision for consideration. I have taken Jeremy's original that Parminder commented on at the beginning of this thread, and added my suggestions, paragraph by paragraph, in blue. Most of the words are really Jeremy's. I have done nothing to the 2 ECOSOC paragraphs which still seem to be under discussion. I have tried to make phrases enclosed in inverted commas refer verbatim to the Tunis Agenda with the paragraph reference. I am concerned about the inclusion of the word "equal" - see the part in red. I cannot find the word in the Tunis Agenda (in the context where we use it), and it is very loaded language. We certainly should NOT make it appear to be a quotation if it does not appear in the original. Deirdre On 17 February 2010 17:45, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I further agree with Deirdre and Yrjo. > > And I am happy Deirdre volunteered to do a quick revision of the doc for > readability, clarity & conciseness : ) > > > ________________________________________ > From: Deirdre Williams [williams.deirdre at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:03 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > I agree with Yrjö's point. > I also wonder about the writing style of the statement. I know long > sentences are the norm for bureaucratic documents :-), but short simple > sentences communicate much more efficiently, particularly when one is > communicating across languages? > Deirdre > > On 17 February 2010 10:06, Yrjö Länsipuro > wrote: > Yes, I think Parminder has a valid point here. Our strongest argument is > the procedural one. Review and assessment of WSIS outcomes have *always* > gone through CSTD, why not now? Standing on the precedent is an age-old > bureaucratic device, and we might use it here yto our advantage. We could > also point out that special provisions have been made at CSTD to accomodate > other stakeholders as per WSIS principles, but we should not get in the > argument about the ECOSOC. > > Yrjö > > ________________________________ > From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> > Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:23:44 +0100 > CC: jeremy at ciroap.org > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; > parminder at itforchange.net > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > > Hi > > On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Parminder wrote: > > [snip] > > We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater > multistakeholder (MS) involvement. > > However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. I am > really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums in Geneva/ New > York. Does someone has full information on this? I do know that a temporary > window was created to involve all WSIS accredited organizations (when does > this end) but perhaps not much more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an > observer and speaks only in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not > formally involved in drafting processes, though informal practices may > operate (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should > push it too much. > > I agree, we can't call CSTD a MS institution, it's an intergovernmental > that has made special provisions to allow some CS involved in one area of > activity some scope for involvement that exceeds what is possible in ECOSOC. > > BD > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder > institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited > and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More > importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are > not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no > representation within ECOSOC at all. This makes it impossible to regard > ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution. > > > ________________________________ > Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.< > https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY.doc Type: application/msword Size: 35840 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 17 18:59:45 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:59:45 +0500 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <701af9f71002171559g39aef06oe29a71dd39a403d4@mail.gmail.com> I too agree with Parminder, Deirdre and Yrjo's comments and the relevant changes to the text. Short communication with an assertive tone is necessary at this stage. -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Parminder wrote: > Jeremy, > > You may consider these comments too late in the day and may ignore them. I > havent reached Bangalore yet after the open consultations and thus the > delay. > > However if you are still considering major changes i would suggest that we > make a simple though strong statement that IGF review should be an elaborate > process with MS involvement, and it is but appropriate that UN Secy Gen's > recommendations based on the formal consultations with IGF participants at > Sharm is presented to the CSTD before it is reviewed by ECOSOC and then the > UN Gen Assembly which makes the final decision. CSTD clearly has a formal > role in WSIS follow up as per section 105 of TA, and IGF review is obviously > a part of WSIS review. > > We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively  greater  multistakeholder > (MS) involvement. > > However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. I am > really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums in Geneva/ New > York. Does someone has full information on this? I do know that a temporary > window was created to involve all WSIS accredited organizations (when does > this end) but perhaps not much more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an > observer and speaks only in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not > formally involved in drafting processes, though informal practices may > operate (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should > push it too much. > > In fact, in making the statement it might be best to stress the CSTD factor, > since CSTD is formally assigned to do WSIS follow up and not so much the MS > point (which should follow form implication) because  TA para  76 clearly > says that UN Secy Gen after formal consultations with IGF participants will > 'make recommendations to the UN membership'. We can say that CSTD, like > ECOSOC is extension of the UN membership review system. > > parminder > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > I think I have incorporated everyone's suggestions in what appears below. >  If not, let me know.  If all is well, my feeling is that we can probably > move swiftly to a consensus call.  If not, please contribute specific > language that would address your dissatisfaction. > When the consensus call is made, responding to feedback from last time, I > propose to experiment with Web-based polling, rather than the usual stream > of "YES" and "NO" emails to the list (though the list can and should still > be used for comments during the consensus call period).  If there are any > objections to that, please say so now. > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS > SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > Dear Sir, > As a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique > multi-stakeholder process, the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus > writes to express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of > that process, in the revelation at the last IGF open consultation meeting on > 10 February that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF will > not be reviewed by the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for > Development).  In raising this concern, we are joining our voice to those of > several governments who spoke to similar effect at that open consultation > meeting. > This recognition of the principle of "multistakeholderism" in the Tunis > Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in > particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in > contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The acceptance > of civil society as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big > step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial > work the civil society representatives did during WSIS I and II, documented > in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in > December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who > accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the contribution to > the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG).  The > launch of the IGF as a "multistakeholder discussion platform" was the result > of this. > Responsibility for system-wide follow-up  of the WSIS outcomes, including > the IGF, was granted  to ECOSOC, with the actual review and assessment work > tasked to the CSTD, one of its functional commissions, which for this > purpose was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder > approach".   (Tunis Agenda, para 105).  The "opening" of the CSTD to other > stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 > and 2008/218.  According to these decisions,  all WSIS-accredited NGOs, > academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to >  participate in the work of the CSTD. > > With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions > on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the > performance of the IGF.  Its multi-stakeholder process, like that of the IGF > itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful.  A similar > approach has also resulted in success in other forums: for example, national > and regional IGFs that have brought valuable contributions to the debates > and dialogues in the main IGF.  There is therefore no reason for a sudden > departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder > institution.  Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited > and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC.  More > importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are > not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no > representation within ECOSOC at all.  This makes it impossible to regard > ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution. > Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and > transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It > would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private > sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the > opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took > three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > > We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your > recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration > at its May meeting, where they will be open for review by non-governmental > stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multi-stakeholder > institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's > confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the > IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. > We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the > continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of > Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an > independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United > Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > Thank you for your consideration. > > -- > > 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 lmcknigh at syr.edu Wed Feb 17 19:38:56 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 19:38:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...) (this allows sec gen to be shocked! shocked! at unauthorized machinations of underlings....since of course we're sure he would never knowingly bypass cstd right? : ) ________________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams [williams.deirdre at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 6:52 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Yrjö Länsipuro; Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Leaned on by Lee to put my money where my mouth is :-) I offer this revision for consideration. I have taken Jeremy's original that Parminder commented on at the beginning of this thread, and added my suggestions, paragraph by paragraph, in blue. Most of the words are really Jeremy's. I have done nothing to the 2 ECOSOC paragraphs which still seem to be under discussion. I have tried to make phrases enclosed in inverted commas refer verbatim to the Tunis Agenda with the paragraph reference. I am concerned about the inclusion of the word "equal" - see the part in red. I cannot find the word in the Tunis Agenda (in the context where we use it), and it is very loaded language. We certainly should NOT make it appear to be a quotation if it does not appear in the original. Deirdre On 17 February 2010 17:45, Lee W McKnight > wrote: I further agree with Deirdre and Yrjo. And I am happy Deirdre volunteered to do a quick revision of the doc for readability, clarity & conciseness : ) ________________________________________ From: Deirdre Williams [williams.deirdre at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 10:03 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing I agree with Yrjö's point. I also wonder about the writing style of the statement. I know long sentences are the norm for bureaucratic documents :-), but short simple sentences communicate much more efficiently, particularly when one is communicating across languages? Deirdre On 17 February 2010 10:06, Yrjö Länsipuro >> wrote: Yes, I think Parminder has a valid point here. Our strongest argument is the procedural one. Review and assessment of WSIS outcomes have *always* gone through CSTD, why not now? Standing on the precedent is an age-old bureaucratic device, and we might use it here yto our advantage. We could also point out that special provisions have been made at CSTD to accomodate other stakeholders as per WSIS principles, but we should not get in the argument about the ECOSOC. Yrjö ________________________________ From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:23:44 +0100 CC: jeremy at ciroap.org> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org>; parminder at itforchange.net> Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 2 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Hi On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Parminder wrote: [snip] We can add that the CSTD forum gives a relatively greater multistakeholder (MS) involvement. However I wont harp too much on this point, in this representation. I am really not sure how much more MS is CSTD than other UN forums in Geneva/ New York. Does someone has full information on this? I do know that a temporary window was created to involve all WSIS accredited organizations (when does this end) but perhaps not much more. Even at CSTD CS is present only as an observer and speaks only in allocated slots, in the end. We are also not formally involved in drafting processes, though informal practices may operate (sometimes). So while we may make this point, I dont think we should push it too much. I agree, we can't call CSTD a MS institution, it's an intergovernmental that has made special provisions to allow some CS involved in one area of activity some scope for involvement that exceeds what is possible in ECOSOC. BD Jeremy Malcolm wrote: In contrast to the CSTD, ECOSOC itself is not a multi-stakeholder institution. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. This makes it impossible to regard ECOSOC as a truly multi-stakeholder institution. ________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org> To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 -- “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 jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Feb 17 21:08:39 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:08:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. > > I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - > > 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...) Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Dear Sir, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past. In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Thank you for your consideration. -- 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Feb 18 03:47:47 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:47:47 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068B3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Thanks for the improvement. Looks very good now. Wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] Gesendet: Do 18.02.2010 03:08 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Betreff: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. > > I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - > > 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc....) Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Dear Sir, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past. In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 .... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC's functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). Thank you for your consideration. -- 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 yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Thu Feb 18 03:53:00 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:53:00 +0200 Subject: AW: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068B3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: ,<4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net>,,,,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,,<93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>,,<2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068B3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: OK with me, too Yrjö > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:47:47 +0100 > From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeremy at ciroap.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org; lmcknigh at syr.edu > Subject: AW: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD > > Thanks for the improvement. Looks very good now. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Von: Jeremy Malcolm [mailto:jeremy at ciroap.org] > Gesendet: Do 18.02.2010 03:08 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight > Betreff: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD > > > > On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. > > > > I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - > > > > 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc....) > > Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past. > > In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 .... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. > > The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC's functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. > > With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > > The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. > > Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > > We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. > > We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > > Thank you for your consideration. > > -- > 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 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 18 04:31:30 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:31:30 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> Hi, here some further suggestions: civil society as equal partner is still in the document: "By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner > in their specific role (Para 61)." We should rather use TA language were possible. Instead of "This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS)." we might say, "we regards this" or many observers regard this as the biggest..." 3. para: The following sentence is somewhat odd and I do not really understand it: "For > this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the > multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105)." 4. para: The following sentence should be toned down as it sounds a bit too categorical: "There is therefore no reason for a sudden > departure from this process on the question of the continuation of > the IGF." We could say instead that we don't understand the reason or something to that effect. 5. para: can be dropped I think 7. para: Anomaly seems wrong terminology to me. "We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting > your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for > consideration at its May meeting." We should ask to reconsider the decision and to express his support and commitment to te multistakeholder approach by fully including the CSTD in the evaluation process or something along this line. In any case, it shouldn't sound like an order. jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, >> thanks Deirdre. >> >> I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - >> >> 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed >> etc...) > > Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and > additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to > address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by > (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to > me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than > "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can > finalise this soon. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED > NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of > the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder > process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential > weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several > governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open > consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation > meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the > continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on > Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the > past. > > In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para > 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and > public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was > recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World > Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly > multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet > Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner > in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive > and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during > WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil > Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed > over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the > Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the > contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet > Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for > "multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. > > > The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was > given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, > including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were > delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For > this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the > multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion > in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions > 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these > decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private > sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of > the CSTD. > > With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC > resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including > assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other > stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's > process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as > innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden > departure from this process on the question of the continuation of > the IGF. > > The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would > welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental > stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD > does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its > parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their > influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into > consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that > were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with > ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at > all. > > Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open > and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental > stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil > society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the > ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate > started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change > this. > > We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting > your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for > consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review > by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique > multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, > civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the > continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General > Assembly might well be reduced. > > We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support > for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in > Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). > > Thank you for your consideration. > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 18 04:46:22 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:46:22 +0800 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 18/02/2010, at 5:31 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > 3. para: The following sentence is somewhat odd and I do not really understand it: "For > > this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the > > multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105)." The odd wording is not ours, though, it's the TA's. It does literally call for "strengthening of the Commission, taking into account the multi-stakeholder approach". So I think we should retain this, odd as it is. > 5. para: can be dropped I think Does anyone else think it should be dropped (personally I feel this paragraph is rather important)? It says this: The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. I don't have any problem with your other suggestions. -- 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 ca at cafonso.ca Thu Feb 18 05:23:35 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:23:35 -0200 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <57F63BF5-078D-4E19-AB77-DBB24762B135@cafonso.ca> I think it looks great now. --c.a. enviado via iPhone On 18/02/2010, at 00:08, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, >> thanks Deirdre. >> >> I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - >> >> 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed >> etc...) > > Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and > additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to > address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non- > governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to > me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi- > stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can > finalise this soon. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED > NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter > of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi- > stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a > potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by > several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open > consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation > meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the > continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on > Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in > the past. > > In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of > "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet > encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should > involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest > conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information > Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a > guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society > was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). > It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the > civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was > documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, > adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the > Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. > It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the > UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the > IGF as a locus for "multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was > the result of this. > > The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was > given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS > outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work > were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. > For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the > multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion > in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decision > s 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these dec > isions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sec > tor representatives were invited to participate in the work of the > CSTD. > > With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC > resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including > assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other > stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's > process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as > innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a > sudden departure from this process on the question of the > continuation of the IGF. > > The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would > welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental > stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD > does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than > its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their > influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into > consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that > were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status > with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within > ECOSOC at all. > > Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open > and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental > stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil > society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after > the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real > debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to > change this. > > We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by > transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to > the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be > open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a > unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do > this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution > on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the > General Assembly might well be reduced. > > We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support > for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the > discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in > Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs > (UNDESA). > > Thank you for your consideration. > > -- > 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 williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 18 05:24:41 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 06:24:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> Message-ID: On 18 February 2010 05:46, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/02/2010, at 5:31 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > 3. para: The following sentence is somewhat odd and I do not really > understand it: "For > > > this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the > > > multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105)." > > The odd wording is not ours, though, it's the TA's. It does literally call > for "strengthening of the Commission, taking into account the > multi-stakeholder approach". So I think we should retain this, odd as it > is. > What you might do is " For this purpose it was to be "[strengthened] ... taking into account the multi-stakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) > > > 5. para: can be dropped I think > > Does anyone else think it should be dropped (personally I feel this > paragraph is rather important)? It says this: > > The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome > further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in > the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively > greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst > ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their > expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, > there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in > consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no > representation within ECOSOC at all. > I agree with Jeannette. My reasons - if we are asking to preserve the status quo, do what has been done each time previously, then I don't think we should confuse the issue with explanations. The justification has been established by precedent - four times previously "everyone" agreed that this was a good way to do things. For perhaps similar reasons I object to the sentence Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. because it sounds like a threat without backup. I would prefer to state it positively: Civil society's confidence in this process (WSIS I and II, the IGF) has been steadily enhanced and encouraged over a period of ten years. We are committed to a multistakeholder process involving all partners, and look forward to continuing this engagement. I'm all for Disraeli's approach - "don't complain, don't explain" :-) Deirdre > I don't have any problem with your other suggestions. > > -- > 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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 18 06:04:36 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:04:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> I support Deidre's reasoning (for dropping para 5) and her suggestions. And: the fact that the language in the original is odd doesn't mean that we have to repeat it. If we find better language to make our point clear whe should do so. So, what is the specific point of the following sentence: For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" jeanette jeanette Deirdre Williams wrote: > > > On 18 February 2010 05:46, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > On 18/02/2010, at 5:31 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > 3. para: The following sentence is somewhat odd and I do not > really understand it: "For > > > this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the > > > multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105)." > > The odd wording is not ours, though, it's the TA's. It does > literally call for "strengthening of the Commission, taking into > account the multi-stakeholder approach". So I think we should > retain this, odd as it is. > > > What you might do is " For this purpose it was to be "[strengthened] > ... taking into account the multi-stakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, > para 105) > > > > 5. para: can be dropped I think > > Does anyone else think it should be dropped (personally I feel this > paragraph is rather important)? It says this: > > The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would > welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental > stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD > does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than > its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their > influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into > consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that > were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status > with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within > ECOSOC at all. > > > I agree with Jeannette. My reasons - if we are asking to preserve the > status quo, do what has been done each time previously, then I don't > think we should confuse the issue with explanations. The justification > has been established by precedent - four times previously "everyone" > agreed that this was a good way to do things. > > For perhaps similar reasons I object to the sentence > > Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the > legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is > ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. > > because it sounds like a threat without backup. I would prefer to state > it positively: > > Civil society's confidence in this process (WSIS I and II, the IGF) has > been steadily enhanced and encouraged over a period of ten years. We are > committed to a multistakeholder process involving all partners, and look > forward to continuing this engagement. > > I'm all for Disraeli's approach - "don't complain, don't explain" :-) > Deirdre > > > I don't have any problem with your other suggestions. > > -- > 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 > > > > > -- > “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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 18 06:17:09 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:47:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B7D21B5.1000907@itforchange.net> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. >> >> I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - >> >> 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...) >> > > Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > I still prefer that we start with IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary General's report and recommendations on ' the desirability of the continuation of the Forum ' based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before it is considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. This will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned actors, including governments, with this very important issue. CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. We further agree with the statements made by some government representatives in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be no logic to short circuit the normal process of consideration of issues concerned with WSIS, going against the practice of the past. It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on 'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF. However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier. We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be the key factor in the present context) . Parminder > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past. > > In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi-stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. > > The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. > > With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > > The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. > > Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > > We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. > > We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > > Thank you for your consideration. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Feb 18 06:24:29 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:24:29 +0800 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> On 18/02/2010, at 7:04 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I support Deidre's reasoning (for dropping para 5) and her suggestions. Then we have you and Deirdre who don't want paragraph 5 and Yrjö, Wolfgang et al who do. We also have Parminder who has contributed a completely different text (and I don't think there's any point in integrating it with the existing text, because it's written as a complete alternative). I now need to know what each of you can live with. Jeanette and Deirdre, could you live with paragraph 5? Others, could you live with losing it? All, could you live with Parminder's draft instead of the one we've been discussing, or Parminder could you live with the original one? -- 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 jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 18 06:34:52 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:34:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B7D25DC.9020701@wzb.eu> Hi again, I agree with Deidre that we shouldn't use a statement to explain matters. Particularly, we shouldn't explain UN procedures including timing in a statement to the UNSG. Therefore, I would take only the following para from Parminder's text and integrate it, perhaps after rewriting it a bit to make it sound polite: We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. jeanette Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/02/2010, at 7:04 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> I support Deidre's reasoning (for dropping para 5) and her suggestions. > > Then we have you and Deirdre who don't want paragraph 5 and Yrjö, Wolfgang et al who do. > > We also have Parminder who has contributed a completely different text (and I don't think there's any point in integrating it with the existing text, because it's written as a complete alternative). > > I now need to know what each of you can live with. Jeanette and Deirdre, could you live with paragraph 5? Others, could you live with losing it? > > All, could you live with Parminder's draft instead of the one we've been discussing, or Parminder could you live with the original one? > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Thu Feb 18 06:43:19 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 07:13:19 -0430 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing-- In-Reply-To: <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B7D27D7.1060400@gmail.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com Thu Feb 18 06:52:04 2010 From: yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com (=?Windows-1252?B?WXJq9iBM5G5zaXB1cm8=?=) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:52:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7D25DC.9020701@wzb.eu> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org>,<4B7D25DC.9020701@wzb.eu> Message-ID: I could certainly live with all alternatives we are now discussing. They all convey the same message, with different emphasis on our main points. I'm quite attracted by Parminder's new text, because it is short and starts from the fact that many governments already opposed cutting out the CSTD. This way, joining our voices with other stakeholders, our statement might carry more weight than otherwise. However, maybe I'm biased, having worn the government hat for so long... Yrjö > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:34:52 +0000 > From: jeanette at wzb.eu > To: jeremy at ciroap.org > CC: governance at lists.cpsr.org; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > Hi again, > > I agree with Deidre that we shouldn't use a statement to explain > matters. Particularly, we shouldn't explain UN procedures including > timing in a statement to the UNSG. Therefore, I would take only the > following para from Parminder's text and integrate it, perhaps after > rewriting it a bit to make it sound polite: > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be > made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help > the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on this > matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > jeanette > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 18/02/2010, at 7:04 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> I support Deidre's reasoning (for dropping para 5) and her suggestions. > > > > Then we have you and Deirdre who don't want paragraph 5 and Yrjö, Wolfgang et al who do. > > > > We also have Parminder who has contributed a completely different text (and I don't think there's any point in integrating it with the existing text, because it's written as a complete alternative). > > > > I now need to know what each of you can live with. Jeanette and Deirdre, could you live with paragraph 5? Others, could you live with losing it? > > > > All, could you live with Parminder's draft instead of the one we've been discussing, or Parminder could you live with the original one? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 18 06:55:16 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:25:16 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B7D2AA4.5030203@itforchange.net> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > On 18/02/2010, at 7:04 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > >> I support Deidre's reasoning (for dropping para 5) and her suggestions. >> > > Then we have you and Deirdre who don't want paragraph 5 and Yrjö, Wolfgang et al who do. > > We also have Parminder who has contributed a completely different text (and I don't think there's any point in integrating it with the existing text, because it's written as a complete alternative). > > I now need to know what each of you can live with. Jeanette and Deirdre, could you live with paragraph 5? Others, could you live with losing it? > > All, could you live with Parminder's draft instead of the one we've been discussing, or Parminder could you live with the original one? > > Jeremy I suggest an alternative strategy, but if others want to go by the original one it is fine with me. I will sign on it as well. The problem is that the opening para itself I think have some factual errors, and the UN SG's office will lose interest as another 'we want more MS-ism' pitch by the CS when we have a much stronger case here which is not presented. >The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder >process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who >spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. >At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that >your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the >Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) >as has been done in the past. We need to correct this a bit. It looks like there have been earlier recs on continuation of the IGF. we will have to say '... as has been done in the past with all matters pertaining to WSIS follow up.' Also quoting WSIS extensively on multistakeholderism would not really to be of much effect because in response one can just quote para 76 which deals with the matter under consideration which clearly says that the UN SG's recs based on formal consultations with forum participants will be submitted to the 'UN membership' which is read by all in the UN system as UN GA, and certainly, as pertaining to governments as UN members. So the real issue here, which gives us the best traction, is whether CSTD, as the proper process followed in the past, or not, and not whether a multistakeholder process (for consideration of SG's report) or not. But as I said I will go with the other IGC statement under consideration as well. Parminder -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Feb 18 07:06:01 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:06:01 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> <4B7D25DC.9020701@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068BD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> No Yrjö, this should be very underlined. Refering to governments and other stakeholders - (private sector, technical community?) would give the statement more power. If we just articulate us ourselves as CS this will be widely ignored by the UN burocracy. Unfortunately this is the fact. I remember it was the joint CS/PS statement in Geneva in September 2005 which finally convinced Ambassador Kahn to continue the negotiations in the plenary (with non governmental stakeholders in the room) instead of creating a negotaition group of govenrments which would have excluded CS and others. w ________________________________ Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] Gesendet: Do 18.02.2010 12:52 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeremy at ciroap.org Cc: williams.deirdre at gmail.com Betreff: RE: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing I could certainly live with all alternatives we are now discussing. They all convey the same message, with different emphasis on our main points. I'm quite attracted by Parminder's new text, because it is short and starts from the fact that many governments already opposed cutting out the CSTD. This way, joining our voices with other stakeholders, our statement might carry more weight than otherwise. However, maybe I'm biased, having worn the government hat for so long.... Yrjö > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:34:52 +0000 > From: jeanette at wzb.eu > To: jeremy at ciroap.org > CC: governance at lists.cpsr.org; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > Hi again, > > I agree with Deidre that we shouldn't use a statement to explain > matters. Particularly, we shouldn't explain UN procedures including > timing in a statement to the UNSG. Therefore, I would take only the > following para from Parminder's text and integrate it, perhaps after > rewriting it a bit to make it sound polite: > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be > made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help > the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on this > matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > jeanette > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 18/02/2010, at 7:04 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > >> I support Deidre's reasoning (for dropping para 5) and her suggestions. > > > > Then we have you and Deirdre who don't want paragraph 5 and Yrjö, Wolfgang et al who do. > > > > We also have Parminder who has contributed a completely different text (and I don't think there's any point in integrating it with the existing text, because it's written as a complete alternative). > > > > I now need to know what each of you can live with. Jeanette and Deirdre, could you live with paragraph 5? Others, could you live with losing it? > > > > All, could you live with Parminder's draft instead of the one we've been discussing, or Parminder could you live with the original one? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 18 07:11:01 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:11:01 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7D2AA4.5030203@itforchange.net> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> <4B7D2AA4.5030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B7D2E55.3070402@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > > Jeremy > > I suggest an alternative strategy, but if others want to go by the > original one it is fine with me. I will sign on it as well. > > The problem is that the opening para itself I think have some factual > errors, I cannot see any factual errors in the following para: and the UN SG's office will lose interest as another 'we > want more MS-ism' pitch by the CS when we have a much stronger case > here which is not presented. > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter >> of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique >> multi-stakeholder >process. We express a concern about what we see >> as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by >> several governments who >spoke to similar effect at the last IGF >> open consultation meeting on 10 February. > > In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of > multistakeholderism I would recommend that you re-read the statement of France. but underlying their objections was a different > politics. These issues are by no means mutually exclusive. I guess that most governments wouldn't be happy to return to an intergovernmental process designed to discuss IG forever. The MS approach is more productive and provides them with a lot of flexibility. jeanette They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some > games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a > better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont > be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are > members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get > matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process > was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really > spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first > assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the > proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is > all. > >> At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that >your >> recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed >> by the >Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) >> >as has been done in the past. > > We need to correct this a bit. It looks like there have been earlier > recs on continuation of the IGF. we will have to say '... as has been > done in the past with all matters pertaining to WSIS follow up.' > > > Also quoting WSIS extensively on multistakeholderism would not really > to be of much effect because in response one can just quote para 76 > which deals with the matter under consideration which clearly says > that the UN SG's recs based on formal consultations with forum > participants will be submitted to the 'UN membership' which is read > by all in the UN system as UN GA, and certainly, as pertaining to > governments as UN members. > > So the real issue here, which gives us the best traction, is > > whether CSTD, as the proper process followed in the past, or not, > > and not > > whether a multistakeholder process (for consideration of SG's report) > or not. > > But as I said I will go with the other IGC statement under > consideration as well. > > Parminder > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 18 08:10:38 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:10:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7D2AA4.5030203@itforchange.net> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> <4B7D2AA4.5030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <7A5EABCB-1DE2-4908-96E0-02A584BC6CB3@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> All, could you live with Parminder's draft instead of the one we've been discussing, or Parminder could you live with the original one? With some bits of copy editing for language, I think Parminder's would be the better submission. It's more direct and to the point of following established process, doesn't explain UN history and institutional dynamics to the UN SG, doesn't impute singular MS motivations to governments, etc. Jeremy built the original out from Wolfgang's discursive message about the threat to multilateralism, which was formulated as a warning to CS about the stakes, not as a process complaint to the SG. Parminder's is more optimized to the purpose at hand. It might be worth bearing in mind that this is not an every day counts matter of urgency. It'd be good to get it out next week, but when writing to the SG we should avoid rushed decisions and get it right. And also remember that it presumably will be read by the under-SG, so the wording has to be firm but correct, no pressing the wrong buttons. Best, Bill ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Feb 18 08:26:44 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:26:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7D2AA4.5030203@itforchange.net> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> <4B7D2AA4.5030203@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <954259bd1002180526g4fbed642yc22d7f6d4ef5cdf2@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke *were not thinking of multistakeholderism*but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature. The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Feb 18 09:08:47 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:08:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> <4B7D25DC.9020701@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <954259bd1002180608n4c289c5fs959c51221af70193@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Irrespective of my previous comment on Parminder's analysis of the motivation of governments, Yrjö has a very valid point : Parminder's document is shorter and more direct. Probably better as a base to work from. Sometimes, less is more. Bill also mentions rightly that there is no real urgency. The key point is indeed : "Desirability of the continuation of the IGF" can certainly be qualified as a WSIS-follow-up question. Not respecting the normal process for WSIS follow-up issues (ie : the circuit : CSTD, ECOSOC, UN GA) should be justified by fact-based reasons. None has been provided so far and the option that is envisaged has two clear drawbacks : - it prevents fruitful interactions that can take place in the CSTD - and there only - the ECOSOC cannot send the report back to the CSTD (like it did on enhanced cooperation) because a decision must be taken before the end of this year. In any case, as mentioned in the previous post, the key question for the UN GA should be Yes or No, as the question is "desirability of the continuation". Best Bertrand On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: > I could certainly live with all alternatives we are now discussing. They > all convey the same message, with different emphasis on our main points. > > I'm quite attracted by Parminder's new text, because it is short and starts > from the fact that many governments already opposed cutting out the CSTD. > This way, joining our voices with other stakeholders, our statement might > carry more weight than otherwise. > > However, maybe I'm biased, having worn the government hat for so long... > > > Yrjö > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:34:52 +0000 > > From: jeanette at wzb.eu > > To: jeremy at ciroap.org > > CC: governance at lists.cpsr.org; williams.deirdre at gmail.com > > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > > > > Hi again, > > > > I agree with Deidre that we shouldn't use a statement to explain > > matters. Particularly, we shouldn't explain UN procedures including > > timing in a statement to the UNSG. Therefore, I would take only the > > following para from Parminder's text and integrate it, perhaps after > > rewriting it a bit to make it sound polite: > > > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > > process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be > > made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help > > the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on this > > matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > > > jeanette > > > > > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > > On 18/02/2010, at 7:04 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > >> I support Deidre's reasoning (for dropping para 5) and her > suggestions. > > > > > > Then we have you and Deirdre who don't want paragraph 5 and Yrjö, > Wolfgang et al who do. > > > > > > We also have Parminder who has contributed a completely different text > (and I don't think there's any point in integrating it with the existing > text, because it's written as a complete alternative). > > > > > > I now need to know what each of you can live with. Jeanette and > Deirdre, could you live with paragraph 5? Others, could you live with losing > it? > > > > > > All, could you live with Parminder's draft instead of the one we've > been discussing, or Parminder could you live with the original one? > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ------------------------------ > Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft’s powerful SPAM protection. Sign up > now. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Feb 18 09:57:17 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:27:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7D21B5.1000907@itforchange.net> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D21B5.1000907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello As observed, Parminder's draft is good, but when combined with parts of Jeremy's draft, it would be even more powerful. Some of my comments are inline within Parminder's draft and within Jeremy's draft as quoted. On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Parminder wrote: > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > > > > Hi, > > Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. > > I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - > > 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...) > > > Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > > > > I still prefer that we start with > > IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the recent > open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary General's report and > recommendations on ' the desirability of the continuation of the Forum ' > based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm be presented to the CSTD's > annual session in May 2010 before it is considered by the ECOSOC and then by > the UN Assembly. > The reference to the "views expressed by many government delegates" is good, but this opening line is too long. As a suggestion, breaking this up into two sentences such as " IGC exphasizes that the UN Secretary General's report on the continuation of IGF be presented to the CSTD in its May sesssion before being presented to the ECOSOC and UN Assembly, as recommended by many Government delegates at the February 2010 Open Consultations." This report by the Secretary General on the 'Desirability and Continuation of the Internet Governance Forum' is based on formal consultations at the IGF 2009 held at Sharm el Sheikh and reflects the wishes of the participants of the forum. " could be more readable. > This will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned > actors, including governments, with this very important issue. CSTD is > formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its > specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, > including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed > consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. > Here we may insert a passage from Jeremy's draft " The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD... With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful." As a preamble we can include the two paragraphs from Jeremy's draft "In the Tunis Agenda 2005 .... (Para 7) was the result of this." and " The Economic and Social Council of the ..... participate in the work of the CSTD" which is well researched and gives the appearance of a well drafted diplomatic statement. > We further agree with the statements made by some government > representatives > To make this more effective, we can name the Governments and quote what they said. > in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be no logic to short > circuit the normal process of consideration of issues concerned with WSIS, > going against the practice of the past. > It does not clearly convey that the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD". We may have to say it here. Also, Jeremy's draft expresses our concerns clearly: " to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002." So, we can think of combining Parminder's draft with Jeremy's draft, for better impact. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on > 'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred > by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it > clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on > > issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why > the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF. > > However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the CSTD > session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer it to CSTD. > This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to consider this issue only > after May, and it is not possible for the matter to be put to CSTD next year > since the final decision on continuation of the IGF will have to be made > much earlier. > > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be made > available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the 'UN > membership' make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per > the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the > relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be the key > factor in the present context) . > > Parminder > > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past. > > In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi- > stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. > > The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. > > With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. > > The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. > > Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. > > We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. > > We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). > > Thank you for your consideration. > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Thu Feb 18 11:04:33 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 12:04:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D21B5.1000907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: My opinion - I agree with all those people who are proposing "short and to the point". I liked the tone of Parminder's suggestion. It seems to me that our stance should be "By some sort of oversight the established procedure has been abruptly jettisoned" allowing for whatever the UNSG version is of "Good gracious! we must fix that" and no loss of face for anyone. Worst case is you get an explanation of why it's happening. Got to go and teach Shakespeare Good luck to all Deirdre On 18 February 2010 10:57, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello > > As observed, Parminder's draft is good, but when combined with parts of > Jeremy's draft, it would be even more powerful. > > Some of my comments are inline within Parminder's draft and within Jeremy's > draft as quoted. > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Parminder wrote: > >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> >> On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. >> >> I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - >> >> 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...) >> >> >> Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon. >> >> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON >> >> Dear Sir, >> >> >> >> >> I still prefer that we start with >> >> IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the >> recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary General's >> report and recommendations on ' the desirability of the continuation of >> the Forum ' based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm be presented to >> the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before it is considered by the ECOSOC >> and then by the UN Assembly. >> > > The reference to the "views expressed by many government delegates" is > good, but this opening line is too long. As a suggestion, breaking this up > into two sentences such as " IGC exphasizes that the UN Secretary General's > report on the continuation of IGF be presented to the CSTD in its May > sesssion before being presented to the ECOSOC and UN Assembly, as > recommended by many Government delegates at the February 2010 Open > Consultations." This report by the Secretary General on the 'Desirability > and Continuation of the Internet Governance Forum' is based on > formal consultations at the IGF 2009 held at Sharm el Sheikh and reflects > the wishes of the participants of the forum. " could be more readable. > > >> This will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned >> actors, including governments, with this very important issue. CSTD is >> formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its >> specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, >> including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed >> consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. >> > > Here we may insert a passage from Jeremy's draft " The Economic and Social > Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the > general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review > and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional > commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account > the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in > the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, > 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all > WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives > were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD... With this structure > in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS > follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the > IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS > principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely > lauded as innovative and successful." > > As a preamble we can include the two paragraphs from Jeremy's draft "In the > Tunis Agenda 2005 .... (Para 7) was the result of this." and " The Economic > and Social Council of the ..... participate in the work of the CSTD" which > is well researched and gives the appearance of a well drafted diplomatic > statement. > > >> We further agree with the statements made by some government >> representatives >> > > To make this more effective, we can name the Governments and quote what > they said. > > >> in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be no logic to short >> circuit the normal process of consideration of issues concerned with WSIS, >> going against the practice of the past. >> > > It does not clearly convey that the UNDESA representative declared at the > IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the report to > the CSTD". We may have to say it here. > > Also, Jeremy's draft expresses our concerns clearly: " to move the debate > to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental > and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS > time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room > after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real > debate started in June 2002." > > So, we can think of combining Parminder's draft with Jeremy's draft, for > better impact. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > >> It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report >> on 'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC has been >> referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does >> make it clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on >> > > >> issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why >> the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF. >> >> However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the CSTD >> session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer it to CSTD. >> This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to consider this issue only >> after May, and it is not possible for the matter to be put to CSTD next year >> since the final decision on continuation of the IGF will have to be made >> much earlier. >> > > > > >> >> We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent >> process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be made >> available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the 'UN >> membership' make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per >> the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. >> >> After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the >> relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be the key >> factor in the present context) . >> >> Parminder >> >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past. >> >> In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi- >> stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. >> >> The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. >> >> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. >> >> The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. >> >> Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. >> >> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. >> >> We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). >> >> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 18 11:16:46 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 16:16:46 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D21B5.1000907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B7D67EE.7030800@wzb.eu> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello > > As observed, Parminder's draft is good, but when combined with parts of > Jeremy's draft, it would be even more powerful. Perhaps combining the two would be a good compromise. I still think it is not necessary to explain to the UN why CSTD needs to get the report in May. The follow para from Parminder is good for educating ourselves, but I don't think UN headquarters need this explanation: However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the > CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer > it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to > consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the > matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on > continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier. jeanette > > Some of my comments are inline within Parminder's draft and within > Jeremy's draft as quoted. > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. >>> >>> I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - >>> >>> 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...) >>> >> Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon. >> >> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON >> >> Dear Sir, >> >> > > I still prefer that we start with > > IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the > recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary > General's report and recommendations on ' the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum ' based on formal consultations at IGF > Sharm be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before > it is considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. > > > The reference to the "views expressed by many government delegates" is > good, but this opening line is too long. As a suggestion, breaking this > up into two sentences such as " IGC exphasizes that the UN Secretary > General's report on the continuation of IGF be presented to the CSTD in > its May sesssion before being presented to the ECOSOC and UN Assembly, > as recommended by many Government delegates at the February 2010 Open > Consultations." This report by the Secretary General on the > 'Desirability and Continuation of the Internet Governance Forum' is > based on formal consultations at the IGF 2009 held at Sharm el Sheikh > and reflects the wishes of the participants of the forum. " could be > more readable. > > > This will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of > concerned actors, including governments, with this very important > issue. CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS > follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement > with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis > for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN > Assembly. > > > Here we may insert a passage from Jeremy's draft " The Economic and > Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility > for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The > actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of > ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be > strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis > Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was > formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and > 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, > academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to > participate in the work of the CSTD... With this structure in place, the > CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for > 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By > accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, > the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded > as innovative and successful." > > As a preamble we can include the two paragraphs from Jeremy's draft "In > the Tunis Agenda 2005 .... (Para 7) was the result of this." and " The > Economic and Social Council of the ..... participate in the work of the > CSTD" which is well researched and gives the appearance of a well > drafted diplomatic statement. > > > We further agree with the statements made by some government > representatives > > > To make this more effective, we can name the Governments and quote what > they said. > > > in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be no logic to > short circuit the normal process of consideration of issues > concerned with WSIS, going against the practice of the past. > > > It does not clearly convey that the UNDESA representative declared at > the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the > report to the CSTD". We may have to say it here. > > Also, Jeremy's draft expresses our concerns clearly: " to move the > debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among > governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return > to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were > removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening > sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002." > > So, we can think of combining Parminder's draft with Jeremy's draft, for > better impact. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's > report on 'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC > has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior > consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally > prefer CSTD's views on > > > > issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no > reason why the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF. > > However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the > CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer > it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to > consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the > matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on > continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier. > > > > > > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be > made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will > help the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on > this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the > relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be > the key factor in the present context) . > > Parminder > > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past. >> >> In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi- >> stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. >> >> The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. >> >> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. >> >> The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. >> >> Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. >> >> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. >> >> We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). >> >> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 18 11:33:52 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:33:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7D67EE.7030800@wzb.eu> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D21B5.1000907@itforchange.net> ,<4B7D67EE.7030800@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEC@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Hi, I can't keep up with all the edits now but am fine to go with whatever looks to be a final text at this point. But I want to agree with Parminder and others that emphasizing the inadvertent nonconformity to administrative procedures (we can view it that way) is the winning hand. As main point to memo is to draw sec gen's attention to this (surely! : ) inadvertent nonconformity to administrative procedures; and request that this be promptly resolved; we want to be sure that that is clearly stated in 1st para. That CS likes CSTD cuz it's more ms is fine to mention too. Lee ________________________________________ From: Jeanette Hofmann [jeanette at wzb.eu] Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 11:16 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Cc: Parminder; Jeremy Malcolm; Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Hello > > As observed, Parminder's draft is good, but when combined with parts of > Jeremy's draft, it would be even more powerful. Perhaps combining the two would be a good compromise. I still think it is not necessary to explain to the UN why CSTD needs to get the report in May. The follow para from Parminder is good for educating ourselves, but I don't think UN headquarters need this explanation: However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the > CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer > it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to > consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the > matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on > continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier. jeanette > > Some of my comments are inline within Parminder's draft and within > Jeremy's draft as quoted. > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Parminder > wrote: > > > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >> On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. >>> >>> I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - >>> >>> 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...) >>> >> Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon. >> >> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON >> >> Dear Sir, >> >> > > I still prefer that we start with > > IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the > recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary > General's report and recommendations on ' the desirability of the > continuation of the Forum ' based on formal consultations at IGF > Sharm be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before > it is considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. > > > The reference to the "views expressed by many government delegates" is > good, but this opening line is too long. As a suggestion, breaking this > up into two sentences such as " IGC exphasizes that the UN Secretary > General's report on the continuation of IGF be presented to the CSTD in > its May sesssion before being presented to the ECOSOC and UN Assembly, > as recommended by many Government delegates at the February 2010 Open > Consultations." This report by the Secretary General on the > 'Desirability and Continuation of the Internet Governance Forum' is > based on formal consultations at the IGF 2009 held at Sharm el Sheikh > and reflects the wishes of the participants of the forum. " could be > more readable. > > > This will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of > concerned actors, including governments, with this very important > issue. CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS > follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement > with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis > for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN > Assembly. > > > Here we may insert a passage from Jeremy's draft " The Economic and > Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility > for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The > actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of > ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be > strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis > Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was > formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and > 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, > academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to > participate in the work of the CSTD... With this structure in place, the > CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for > 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By > accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, > the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded > as innovative and successful." > > As a preamble we can include the two paragraphs from Jeremy's draft "In > the Tunis Agenda 2005 .... (Para 7) was the result of this." and " The > Economic and Social Council of the ..... participate in the work of the > CSTD" which is well researched and gives the appearance of a well > drafted diplomatic statement. > > > We further agree with the statements made by some government > representatives > > > To make this more effective, we can name the Governments and quote what > they said. > > > in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be no logic to > short circuit the normal process of consideration of issues > concerned with WSIS, going against the practice of the past. > > > It does not clearly convey that the UNDESA representative declared at > the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the > report to the CSTD". We may have to say it here. > > Also, Jeremy's draft expresses our concerns clearly: " to move the > debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among > governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return > to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were > removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening > sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002." > > So, we can think of combining Parminder's draft with Jeremy's draft, for > better impact. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's > report on 'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC > has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior > consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally > prefer CSTD's views on > > > > issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no > reason why the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF. > > However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the > CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer > it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to > consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the > matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on > continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier. > > > > > > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be > made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will > help the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on > this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the > relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be > the key factor in the present context) . > > Parminder > > >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past. >> >> In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi- >> stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. >> >> The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. >> >> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. >> >> The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. >> >> Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. >> >> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. >> >> We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). >> >> Thank you for your consideration. >> >> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Thu Feb 18 12:52:28 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:22:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D21B5.1000907@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Hello, On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 9:34 PM, Deirdre Williams < williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote: > My opinion - > > It seems to me that our stance should be "By some sort of oversight the > established procedure has been .... > Yes, it is important that we call this an "oversight" rather than call this a 'design" to thwart the process of renewal. Also, it is important that the IGC statement avoids any negative reference to ECOSOC. ECOSOC was responsible for the follow up of WSIS outcomes, including the IGF, and it delegated that work to CSTD. The decision to delegate the work to CSTD and now to decide to handle it directly are matters that can be considered 'internal' to ECOSOC. We may have to be very careful in our wording otherwise it would amount to a comment on ECOSOC's internal administrative decisions. Sivasubramaninan Muthusamy > abruptly jettisoned" > allowing for whatever the UNSG version is of "Good gracious! we must fix > that" and no loss of face for anyone. > Worst case is you get an explanation of why it's happening. > Got to go and teach Shakespeare > Good luck to all > Deirdre > > > On 18 February 2010 10:57, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > >> Hello >> >> As observed, Parminder's draft is good, but when combined with parts of >> Jeremy's draft, it would be even more powerful. >> >> Some of my comments are inline within Parminder's draft and within >> Jeremy's draft as quoted. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> >>> On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for readability, thanks Deirdre. >>> >>> I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - >>> >>> 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be reviewed etc...) >>> >>> >>> Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we can finalise this soon. >>> >>> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON >>> >>> Dear Sir, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I still prefer that we start with >>> >>> IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the >>> recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary General's >>> report and recommendations on ' the desirability of the continuation of >>> the Forum ' based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm be presented to >>> the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before it is considered by the ECOSOC >>> and then by the UN Assembly. >>> >> >> The reference to the "views expressed by many government delegates" is >> good, but this opening line is too long. As a suggestion, breaking this up >> into two sentences such as " IGC exphasizes that the UN Secretary General's >> report on the continuation of IGF be presented to the CSTD in its May >> sesssion before being presented to the ECOSOC and UN Assembly, as >> recommended by many Government delegates at the February 2010 Open >> Consultations." This report by the Secretary General on the 'Desirability >> and Continuation of the Internet Governance Forum' is based on >> formal consultations at the IGF 2009 held at Sharm el Sheikh and reflects >> the wishes of the participants of the forum. " could be more readable. >> >> >>> This will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned >>> actors, including governments, with this very important issue. CSTD is >>> formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its >>> specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, >>> including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed >>> consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. >>> >> >> Here we may insert a passage from Jeremy's draft " The Economic and >> Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for >> the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual >> review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s >> functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking >> into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The >> inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC >> decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these >> decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector >> representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD... With >> this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on >> the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance >> of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS >> principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely >> lauded as innovative and successful." >> >> As a preamble we can include the two paragraphs from Jeremy's draft "In >> the Tunis Agenda 2005 .... (Para 7) was the result of this." and " The >> Economic and Social Council of the ..... participate in the work of the >> CSTD" which is well researched and gives the appearance of a well drafted >> diplomatic statement. >> >> >>> We further agree with the statements made by some government >>> representatives >>> >> >> To make this more effective, we can name the Governments and quote what >> they said. >> >> >>> in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be no logic to short >>> circuit the normal process of consideration of issues concerned with WSIS, >>> going against the practice of the past. >>> >> >> It does not clearly convey that the UNDESA representative declared at the >> IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the report to >> the CSTD". We may have to say it here. >> >> Also, Jeremy's draft expresses our concerns clearly: " to move the debate >> to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental >> and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS >> time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room >> after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real >> debate started in June 2002." >> >> So, we can think of combining Parminder's draft with Jeremy's draft, for >> better impact. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> >> >>> It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report >>> on 'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC has been >>> referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does >>> make it clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on >>> >> >> >>> issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why >>> the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF. >>> >>> However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the CSTD >>> session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer it to CSTD. >>> This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to consider this issue only >>> after May, and it is not possible for the matter to be put to CSTD next year >>> since the final decision on continuation of the IGF will have to be made >>> much earlier. >>> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent >>> process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be made >>> available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the 'UN >>> membership' make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per >>> the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. >>> >>> After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the >>> relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be the key >>> factor in the present context) . >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in the past. >>> >>> In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both technical and public policy issues and should involve all stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a locus for "multi- >>> stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. >>> >>> The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the CSTD. >>> >>> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a sudden departure from this process on the question of the continuation of the IGF. >>> >>> The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we would welcome further enhancement of the participation of non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. >>> >>> Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to change this. >>> >>> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the General Assembly might well be reduced. >>> >>> We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). >>> >>> Thank you for your consideration. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Thu Feb 18 22:37:57 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:37:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] WSIS III In-Reply-To: 954259bd1002180526g4fbed642yc22d7f6d4ef5cdf2@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: Hello Wolfgang, Could you please Cite your source(s), regarding WSIS III. re.:http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-02/msg00300.html >There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society >(WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda >and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. - Bertrand, As you were behind WSIS I, can you do some investigating and shed some light on the possibility/plans of WSIS III please. Thnx - P.S.: If there is to be a WSIS III, then all this letter writing to the SG is really not necessary, the WSIS platform is a multi stakeholder forum. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Feb 19 01:24:01 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:54:01 +0530 Subject: [governance] WSIS III In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Yehuda katz On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > Hello Wolfgang, > > Could you please Cite your source(s), regarding WSIS III. > > re.:http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-02/msg00300.html > > >There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society > >(WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda > >and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. > The ITU Webpage http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/logo.html features a WSIS logo that says "working together towards 2015" and "Turing Targets into Action". This is an indication that there is a definite plan to host a WSIS in 2015. - > > Bertrand, > > As you were behind WSIS I, can you do some investigating and shed some > light on > the possibility/plans of WSIS III please. > > Thnx > > - > > P.S.: If there is to be a WSIS III, then all this letter writing to the SG > is > really not necessary, the WSIS platform is a multi stakeholder forum. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jcancio at mityc.es Fri Feb 19 03:40:30 2010 From: jcancio at mityc.es (Cancio Melia, Jorge) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:40:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS III In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <9F3467EE0D55B9419912B6BFBBDA1E720935DFF736@SRVC202.mityc.age> Dear all I guess you are aware of para 111 of the Tunis Agenda: "111. We request the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to make an overall review of the implementation of WSIS outcomes in 2015." Best Jorge Cancio Ministry of Industry Spain ________________________________ De: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Enviado el: viernes, 19 de febrero de 2010 7:24 Para: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yehuda Katz Asunto: Re: [governance] WSIS III Hello Yehuda katz On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Yehuda Katz > wrote: Hello Wolfgang, Could you please Cite your source(s), regarding WSIS III. re.:http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-02/msg00300.html >There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society >(WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda >and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. The ITU Webpage http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/logo.html features a WSIS logo that says "working together towards 2015" and "Turing Targets into Action". This is an indication that there is a definite plan to host a WSIS in 2015. [http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/images/entrance_page/logo-wsis201530.jpg] - Bertrand, As you were behind WSIS I, can you do some investigating and shed some light on the possibility/plans of WSIS III please. Thnx - P.S.: If there is to be a WSIS III, then all this letter writing to the SG is really not necessary, the WSIS platform is a multi stakeholder forum. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Feb 19 04:06:20 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:06:20 +0100 Subject: AW: [governance] WSIS III References: Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Hi Yehuda WSIS III will probably become an issue at the forthcoming ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Guadalajara (October 2010). ITU hosted, on behalf of the UN, WSIS I & II. The WSIS process started with an ITU Resolution adopted by the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference in Minneapolis (October 1998). The ITU resolution of 1998 was send to the UN and the UN adopted the WSIS project in 2001 by giving the mandate to the ITU. This could become a model for WSIS III. If the ITU Plenipoteniary Conference in 2010 adopts a resolution in favour of a WSIS III, this could go to the UN and the UN can decide in 2011 or 2012 to convene a WSIS III in 2015 under similar conditions as for WSIS I & II. Whatsoever, something has to happen in 2015 because the Geneva Plan of Action points to 2015 as the target date. This coincides with the Millenium Development Goals (MDG). So it is very natural that the MDG & WSIS processes will become closer interlinked. Against this background it is of some interest that the GAID was recently restructured and that UN Secretary General Ban Kin Moon himself accepted the role of Honorary Chairman of GAID (with Mr Tarek Abu Gazaleh as the Chair and Sergey Kambalow as the Executive Secretary). It was Kofi Annan himself who played a crucial role in the making of WSIS and he stood also behind the UNICTTF, the pre-runner of GAID. ITU has another option: To organize something at "world level" to celebrate "WSIS 10+" during its own Plenipotentiary Conference in 2014. But this would be - as Houlin Zhao, ITUs Deputy Secretary General said recently in Geneva - "only ITU". For ITU it is much better to have the UN as the convener and the ITU as the organizer. Insofar the planned "WSIS Forum" in May 2010 in Geneva, organized by the ITU in cooperation with UNESCO and UNCTAD, has a certain strategic meaning. BTW, the format of the "WSIS Forum" is copying the IGF, but gives intergovernmental organisations a much stronger role. There is no MAG which prepares the WSIS Forum. It seems at the moment that "multistakeholderism" is just "lip service" there, but this can be changed. The legal basis for all this is the UN Resolution from 2001 which has introduced (although in vague terms) the idea of the principle of "multstakeholderism" which became then more elaborated in the WSIS process itself and which constituted a basic foundation for the future of the Information society in general and for Internet Govenrnace in particular in the Tunis Agenda in WSIS II (2005). How the "WSIS Forum" and WSIS III will affect Internet Governance processes and the IGF remains open. So far the two processes - WSIS Follow up and IG - were seperated. And Internet Governance is not an issue at the forthcoming "WSIS Forum" in Geneva in May 2010. But I could imagine that some governments would be not against "to harmonize" this again under the leadership of ITU, embedded in the UN machinery. BTW, it is interesting to look back into the negotiations in Minneapolis in 1998. There were, among many others, two controversial proposals on the agenda: One was the Summit proposal (tabled by Tunisia) and the other one was the ratification of the Memorandum of Understanding on new gTLDs of the Interim Ad Hoc Committee (IAHC) which gave ITU the role to become the host of the MoU and to get a certain hand over the management of some critical Internet Resources. The MoU, which was signed in May 1998 by ITU Secretary General Pekka Tarjanne, was fundamentally rejected by the US government which was also against a "Summit" (fearing that the failed UNESCO debate on the New World Information and Communication Order of the 1980s could be revitalized). The Minneapolis ITU Pleninpot ended in this point with a compromise. The US got the recognition of the principle of "private sector leadership" for Internet Governance (in the ITU resolution 102), that is that the new IAHC gTLD MoU was not ratfied, rejected and disappeared (and ptrvoked ITU to come back again and again with the idea to have a crucial say in IG). On the other hand the US government removed its opposition against holding a World Summit on the Information Society and so the WSIS process, as described above, could start. Some observers have speculatesd that the acceptance of the start of the WSIS process was the price the USG was willing to pay to get ICANN ratified and the IAHC/ITU approach killed. Ten days after the end of the ITU Pleninpot in Minneapolis, US Secretary of Commerce, William Daley, signed the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with ICANN and authorized the establishment of ICANN. The first meeting of the new Interim Board of Directors of the new established ICANN took place just two weeks after the end of the Minneapolis conference in Cambridge/MA with Esther Dyson as the new first ICANN Chair. Looking towards ITU Pleninpot in Guadalajara it seems that again there will be some controversial issues on the agenda which "invite" for some "horse-trading behind closed doors". ITU wants to get the right to allocate IPv6 addresses to "National/Local Internet Registries" (NIRs), with other worsds, to become something like a RIR. This is opposed strongly by a nunber of western governments. ITU wants to play also a role in iDNs, ccTLDs and some other CIR issues. It seems that Guadalajara will become another interesting battlefield. Best wishes wolfgang ________________________________ Von: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy [mailto:isolatedn at gmail.com] Gesendet: Fr 19.02.2010 07:24 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yehuda Katz Betreff: Re: [governance] WSIS III Hello Yehuda katz On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: Hello Wolfgang, Could you please Cite your source(s), regarding WSIS III. re.:http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2010-02/msg00300.html >There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society >(WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda >and to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. The ITU Webpage http://www.itu.int/wsis/implementation/2010/forum/geneva/logo.html features a WSIS logo that says "working together towards 2015" and "Turing Targets into Action". This is an indication that there is a definite plan to host a WSIS in 2015. - Bertrand, As you were behind WSIS I, can you do some investigating and shed some light on the possibility/plans of WSIS III please. Thnx - P.S.: If there is to be a WSIS III, then all this letter writing to the SG is really not necessary, the WSIS platform is a multi stakeholder forum. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 19 04:22:08 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:22:08 +0800 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD Message-ID: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> As per the latest comments received, here is a slightly rewritten combination of Parminder's new text with a couple of points from my original draft. So that we can move forward towards a consensus call next week, please try to confine your comments to either significant points of substance, or grammatical/typographical corrections, rather than just rewriting the same ideas in a different form. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Dear Sir, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the views expressed by several government delegates at the recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary-General's report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm, should be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. Indications given at the meeting that this might not be the case have caused some confusion, since this would mark a departure from established practice. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. In addition, consideration of the recommendations by the CSTD will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned actors, including governments, with this very important issue. The CSTD provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why the same should not apply to the Secretary-General's report on the IGF. We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, the UN Secretary-General's report on continuation of the IGF be made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the UN membership make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Feb 19 05:25:02 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:25:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III In-Reply-To: <4b78381e.1c05d00a.266d.fffff5ca@mx.google.com> References: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A0687D@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> <4b78381e.1c05d00a.266d.fffff5ca@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <954259bd1002190225u45c36d50l973a0c97f8475ba2@mail.gmail.com> Hi Renate, Thanks for the input. Good to see you're still following the list. Four points : 1) Wolfgang is right in saying that people who got involved in these topics since 2006 tend to take the IGF format for granted, forgetting that it is a radical innovation in the UN system and still a fragile experiment to implement the new concept of "multi-stakeholder governance". It is not about having "war veterans of the WSIS" rehashing how the world used to be and the battles they have fought. It is about a pragmatic assessment of where this all comes from and how to preserve the delicate balance achieved so far. 2) Renate said something very important : *"BTW, if you have ECOSOC status, you can also speak, lobby and circulate language at ECOSOC Substantive Session in July."* It would be useful for people on this list to address what can be done at the ECOSOC level in July, irrespective of what happens with/at the CSTD in May. 3) Generally speaking, the list should probably not rush towards drafting another statement on this important thread that Wolfgang has launched. This is about strategic discussion at that stage. Be conscious that this list is actually one of the tools for participation of civil society in this discussion on the future of multi-stakeholderism. I can tell you that several government representatives are following the discussions on this list with great interest, even if they do not speak. A structured and substantive discussion here on these strategic issues can help reveal the main arguments for the future debates among governments. 4) Bill is right about the importance of IGF secretariat location. As Renate indicates, there is a strong tradition of NGO interaction with IGOs in Geneva, that is not present in New York where everything is not only too often handled in outdated political divisions (developed vs developing countries) but also overshadowed by all other international issues (security, poverty, etc...). The Geneva location of the Secretariat of the IGF is also an important element to facilitate interaction with several europe-based international organizations that are directly involved in the WSIS-related issues : ITU, WIPO, UNCTAD, but also UNESCO, OECD, Council of Europe, even Interpol. a New york base makes it more difficult. In terms of functioning of the Secretariat, it makes it easier for the Executive Secretary to travel to various places of the world and to reach interlocutors via telephone (given the time differences, more than 100 countries can be reached from Geneva in +/- 5 hours vs less than 40 from New York). It also makes it relatively easier for people to participate in consultations : visa issues, travel arrangements (airline paths) for the african and middle east countries, and presence of national delegations who are more familiar with technical questions. Finally, isn't it strange to see the very governments who complain that Internet Governance is dominated by the United States pushing for the IGF to be more managed by and from a New-York based structure ? Of course the UN in New York is not the US per se, but moving the IGF Secretariat to New York would surely be symbolically strange. Best Bertrand 2010/2/14 Renate Bloem (Gmail) > Dear Wolfgang and list members, > > As one who in the last two years has only observed this list from far, but > has been involved and battled for civil society since day one in the WSIS > and its outcomes, allow me to make a few observations: > > First: I do agree with Wolfgang that the "multistakeholderism" was the > biggest conceptual achievement from WSIS. This was largely due to the > extraordinary expertise that "stakeholders" other than governments brought > into the process. It is also true, that there are trends to move us > backward > again, now that some of these governments have developed their own > expertise. > > Second: Yes, there are different "spirits" in Geneva and New York. There is > more openness in Geneva due to a long process of clear UN/NGO consultative > arrangements, which NGOs have used to their utmost advantage. For example > we > have moved today from observers to "stakeholders" in the Human Rights > Council, a direct subsidiary of the General Assembly (same level as the > Security Council) to which in general we have no institutional arrangements > (with speaking rights, interactive dialogue, written statements, official > panel participation and, depending on governments, to negotiations of > resolutions)But we also still complain of not getting enough time. > > In New York, NGOs have developed their own arrangements, e.g. the so called > "Arias Consultations" with the Security Council or "Hearings" with the > General Assembly. NGOs there also are often much more concerned about the > role of the private sector than that of governments. > > Third, and what I want to say is: before taken next steps (and I do agree > you should and write a statement in favour of the CSTD) to have a good look > at some analysis writings of why the Cardoso report failed, e.g. here > > http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/22031890/The-Cardoso-Repo > > rt-on-the-UN-and-Civil-Society-Functionalism-Global-Corporatism-or-Global-De > mocracy. When I used the term NGO, I mean, as in the article, all of civil > society. > > Fourth and last: In rushing through the verbatim of last week's > consultation, I also suggest to take up Finland's remarks about CSTD's role > in negotiating the resolution on WSIS follow up for ECOSOC, also follow > George Papadatos whether ECOSOC Bureau has already discussed this issue and > under which item. BTW, if you have ECOSOC status, you can also speak, lobby > and circulate language at ECOSOC Substantive Session in July. > > All the best, > > Renate > ------- > > Renate Bloem > Past President of CONGO > Civicus UN Geneva > Tel:/Fax +33450 850815/16 > Mobile : +41763462310 > renate.bloem at civicus.org > renate.bloem at gmail.com > > CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation > PO BOX 933, 2135, Johannesburg, South Africa > www.civicus.org > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" > [mailto:wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de] > Sent: dimanche, 14. février 2010 12:05 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Yrjö Länsipuro; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] IGF, ECOSOC and WSIS III > > Dear list > > I fully support Yrjös statement. There is a need that the IGC raises its > voice in this case. > > My observation is that this is part of a bigger story to move backwards, to > cancel openess, transparency and bottom up PDP and to withdraw from the > principle of "multistakeholderism". It is aimed to get the Internet policy > processes back under control of an intergovernmental regime and to silence > non-governmental stakeholders, at least if it comes to public policy issues > and decision making. > > This recognition of the principle of "multistaklehoderism" in the Tunis > Agenda 2005 was the biggest conceptual achievement in WSIS and was in > particular accepted as a guiding principle for Internet Governance in > contrast to a "one stakeholder (intergovernmental) approach". The > acceptance > of civil soceity as an "equal parter" (in their specific role) was a big > step for civil society. This was paved by the constructive and substantial > work the CS folks did during WSIS I and II, documented in particular in the > WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva in December 2003 and > handed over officially to the Heads of States (who accepted it) in the > Closing Ceremony of WSIS I, and in the xcontribution to the results of the > UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The launch of the IGF as a > "multistakehoder discussion platform" was the result of this. It emerged as > the only concrete result of the WSIS IGFF debate because governments were > unable to agree on "enhanced cooperation" (which in the understanding of > many delegates was aimed to exclude non-governmental stakeholders). > > However, many governments were not happy with this new IGF way of "sharing > power". I rememeber IGF consultations and MAG meetings in 2006 and 2007 > where governmental representatives were questioning the presence of > non-governmental stakeholders in the room. If you go to the transcripts of > these meetings then you will discover that - as an example - the Chinese > delegate never uses the word "multistakholderism" but always the term > "multilateral" when it comes to IG principles. "Multilateral" is indeed a > "used language" in the text of the Tunis Agenda (it comes from the Geneva > 2003 compromise which defined the mandate of the WGIG). But for > international lawyers it is very clear that the legal understanding of > "multilateral" is "intergovernmental". Parties in a "multilateral > convention" are only governments. > > The "opening" of the CSTD was a very complicated procedure which was first > (in 2006) established as a preliminary exception but was later taken for > granted (but never formalized). This was the "spirit of Geneva", it was not > the "spirit of New York". If you talk to UN people in New York they send > you > to the moon of you raise "multistakehoderism" as basic approach to develop > global policies. No multistakholderism in the UN Security Council!!! The > so-called "Cardozo-Report", which investigated the role of NGOs in UN > policy > development - once initiated by Kofi Annan - disappeared in the archives > and no single government in the UN General Assembly in New York was ready > to > draft a resolution with a follow up. > > I do not know whether this is just a speculation but for some people the > planned move of the IGF Secretariat from Geneva to New York is driven also > by the political strategic aim to remove "multistakehoderism" from the > Internet policy process. The public arguments, used by some governments > (and > unfortunately supported by some CS people) in favour of NY are: budget > security for the secretariat, closer link to UN leadership, higher > efficiency, formal outcomes. But the flip side of such a process is to > silence non-governmental stakeholders, and in particular civil society. Do > not buy this "efficiency" pill. This is very poisend. > > The argument the UNDESA rep gave in Geneva that ECOSOC has also hundreds of > "recognized NGOs" which allow consultations with non-governmental > stakeholders sounds like a joke. My organisation - the International > Association for Media and Communication Research (IAMCR), where I am an > elected member of the International Council and the liaison to ECOSOC - is > officially recognized by ECOSOC since the 1960s. But the only thing we can > do is to send written statements which are published before the meeting. > You > can speculate how many ECOSOC reps read all these statements (sometimes > several hundred pages). You have no right to negotiate, you have no right > to > speak, you have even no right to access the meeting room and to brief (or > lobby) delegates. > > With other words, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and > transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It > re-opens the door for intergovernmental horse-trading behind closed doors. > It is like in the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and private sector) > were > removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions > ended and the real debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten > PrepComs to change this. > > This new move to re-install a one-stakeholder approach is paralleled by the > planned WSIS Forum in Geneva in May 2010. This "WSIS Forum" is led by three > intergovernmental organisations (ITU, UNESCO & UNCTAD). During the recent > preparatory meeting in Geneva, there was no non-governmental stakeholder on > the podium. Houlin Zhao, ITU Deputy Secretary General, pointed to UNESCOs > relationship with NGOs and the involvement of the private sector in the ITU > when he was asked about his understanding of "multistakeholderism". > > During WSIS there was a Civil Society Bureau (and a CS Pleanry and a CS > Content&Themes Group) and a private Sector Office which talked officially > to the intergovernmental bureau. The non-governmental mechanisms - which > emerged as functioning units during the WSIS process - more or less > disappeared after Tunis 2005. The only remaining functioning of > "multistakholderism" was the IGF and the UNCSTD. And this is now also under > fire. > > I write this as a wake up call to the new generation of CS/IG leaders and > activists. If you discuss details of IG please do not forget the bigger > political environment. In many places you are not welcomed. What you need > beyond a good substantial IG agenda is also a clear political strategy to > find the places where you can make your substantial arguments. You have > permanently to reconsider your role and self-understanding in the micro AND > macro processes. And you have to look for partners, both among "friendly > governments" and private sector institutions, which are sitting - to a > certain degree - in this context in the same boat as CS. And please, stay > united. > > And this is not just for the IGF and the future PDP for Internet > Governance. > There are now plans to have a 3rd World Summit on the Information Society > (WSIS III) in 2015, to evaluate the implementation of the Tunis Agenda and > to work towards a WSIS 2025 strategy. > > Once Jon Postel said: "There are so many things to do in this exciting > times > we live in". This was in the 1980s. It is true also for the 2010s. > > Best wishes > > Wolfgang > > > ________________________________ > > Von: Yrjö Länsipuro [mailto:yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com] > Gesendet: So 14.02.2010 10:48 > An: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Betreff: RE: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the > > > > Yes, I think there should be a statement. > > After the UNDESA representative declared at the IGF consultations that it > was "not our intention to submit the report to the CSTD", there were > immediate reactions from other stateholders, many (European) governments as > well as from private sector representatives, asking for explanation why > CSTD > would be cut out of the process. > > > The mandate and role of the CSTD in reviewing and assessing the > implementation of WSIS outcomes is anchored in decisions by WSIS and > ECOSOC, > and well established in 2007-2009 when it annually drafted the ECOSOC > resolutions on the WSIS follow-up, including asessments on the perfortmance > of the IGF. There is no reason for a sudden departure from this process on > the question of the continuation of the IGF. > > > As a former representative of Finland on CSTD (until my retirement last > summer) I can confirm that civil society and private sector > representatives > have much better access and opportunity to influence the proceedings at the > CSTD than at the ECOSOC level. In fact, the ECOSOC decisions that opened > CSTD up to other stakeholders speak about "participating in the work" of > it, > rather than just observing. > > > Yrjö Länsipuro > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: jeremy at ciroap.org > Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2010 17:15:58 -0500 > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Secretary-General's recommendations on the > continuation of the IGF > > Those who were at the recent open consultation meeting, or have > subsequently > read the transcript, may recall the disagreement between UNDESA and the > CSTD > over where the UN Secretary-General's recommendations on the continuation > of > the IGF should be delivered, prior to the UN General Assembly receiving it > to make a final decision. > > UNDESA, which administered the consultations for input to the > Secretary-General, proposed to deliver the recommendations directly to > ECOSOC. The CSTD, which is actually an expert committee of ECOSOC, thought > that it should receive those recommendations first, for consideration at > its > upcoming May meeting. > > The relevance of this to us is that the CSTD is open to a broader range of > civil society and private sector observers than ECOSOC, including all those > entities that were accredited at WSIS. So for civil society, if we wish to > give comment on the Secretary-General's recommendations, it is better that > they go to the CSTD first. > > Does anyone think we should make a statement on this? > > > -- > 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. > > > > ________________________________ > > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. Sign up now. > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Feb 19 05:30:34 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 06:30:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: The first and last paragraphs should each have an indication that the process - CSTD, ECOSOC, UN - is the customary one which has been used on each occasion up to now. We are not asking for a change. Considering that the statement is addressed to the Secretary-General Para 4 should be worded so that it does not appear to inform him about what he himself did. Perhaps you could use "remind"? And I am still in favour of cutting up the sentences. These sound beautiful, mellifluous, but all of the subordinate clauses impede comprehension, especially if there is any question of translation. Deirdre On 19 February 2010 05:22, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > As per the latest comments received, here is a slightly rewritten > combination of Parminder's new text with a couple of points from my original > draft. So that we can move forward towards a consensus call next week, > please try to confine your comments to either significant points of > substance, or grammatical/typographical corrections, rather than just > rewriting the same ideas in a different form. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS > SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the views > expressed by several government delegates at the recent open consultations > on the IGF that the UN Secretary-General's report and recommendations on the > desirability of the continuation of the Forum, based on formal consultations > at IGF Sharm, should be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 > before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. > > Indications given at the meeting that this might not be the case have > caused some confusion, since this would mark a departure from established > practice. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS > follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS > issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed > consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. > > In addition, consideration of the recommendations by the CSTD will enable > widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned actors, including > governments, with this very important issue. The CSTD provides relatively > greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following > its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach" > (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, > 2008/217 and 2008/218. > > It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on > "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred > by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it > clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS > follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why the same should > not apply to the Secretary-General's report on the IGF. > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, the UN Secretary-General's report on continuation of the IGF be > made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the > UN membership make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per > the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > -- > > *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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Fri Feb 19 05:42:57 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:42:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: On 19 Feb 2010, at 10:30, Deirdre Williams wrote: > And I am still in favour of cutting up the sentences. These sound > beautiful, mellifluous, but all of the subordinate clauses impede > comprehension, especially if there is any question of translation. > +1 for sentence chopping. Regards f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Feb 19 07:25:51 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:25:51 -0200 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <9BD2F554-BB00-4995-85D9-AB6F7A5ED799@cafonso.ca> What if we invert the text, putting the final block at the beginning followed by all reasoning, so the reader knows right away what we want? --c.a. enviado via iPhone On 19/02/2010, at 08:30, Deirdre Williams wrote: > The first and last paragraphs should each have an indication that > the process - CSTD, ECOSOC, UN - is the customary one which has been > used on each occasion up to now. We are not asking for a change. > > Considering that the statement is addressed to the Secretary-General > Para 4 should be worded so that it does not appear to inform him > about what he himself did. Perhaps you could use "remind"? > > And I am still in favour of cutting up the sentences. These sound > beautiful, mellifluous, but all of the subordinate clauses impede > comprehension, especially if there is any question of translation. > > Deirdre > > > On 19 February 2010 05:22, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > As per the latest comments received, here is a slightly rewritten > combination of Parminder's new text with a couple of points from my > original draft. So that we can move forward towards a consensus > call next week, please try to confine your comments to either > significant points of substance, or grammatical/typographical > corrections, rather than just rewriting the same ideas in a > different form. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED > NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the > views expressed by several government delegates at the recent open > consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary-General's report and > recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the > Forum, based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm, should be > presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before being > considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. > > Indications given at the meeting that this might not be the case > have caused some confusion, since this would mark a departure from > established practice. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with > all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and > history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will > provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by > the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. > > In addition, consideration of the recommendations by the CSTD will > enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned > actors, including governments, with this very important issue. The > CSTD provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than > its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking > into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para > 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and > 2008/218. > > It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's > report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC > has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior > consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally > prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers > them. There is no reason why the same should not apply to the > Secretary-General's report on the IGF. > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, the UN Secretary-General's report on continuation of the > IGF be made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, > which will help the UN membership make an informed and considered > decision on this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > -- > 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 > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir Wi > lliam Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Fri Feb 19 08:56:04 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 19:26:04 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary General on this issue? Why are we so worried about the length of the statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our concerns. Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so much unsaid. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > On 19 Feb 2010, at 10:30, Deirdre Williams wrote: > > And I am still in favour of cutting up the sentences. These sound >> beautiful, mellifluous, but all of the subordinate clauses impede >> comprehension, especially if there is any question of translation. >> >> > +1 for sentence chopping. > > Regards > > > f > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From email at hakik.org Fri Feb 19 09:09:36 2010 From: email at hakik.org (Hakikur Rahman) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 14:09:36 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on In-Reply-To: References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.1.20100219140107.01a7ba68@hakik.org> Yes, a five para statement with several specific decision notes and referral quotes is not too much as long as they are repetitive and blurred away at the end. I support Siva with concerns that by making a shortcut statement we may loose the essence of CS role or what we actually want to be understood. Hakikur Rahman At 01:56 PM 2/19/2010, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the >Secretary General on this issue? Why are we so worried about the >length of the statement when it is not verbose by any standards and >when there aren't too many statements from Civil Society on this >issue? The IGC is making this statement on behalf of most of its >several CS members, so it is ok if the statement is long enough to >include the facts, arguments and express all our concerns. > >Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so >much unsaid. > > >Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > >On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Fearghas McKay ><fm-lists at st-kilda.org> wrote: > >On 19 Feb 2010, at 10:30, Deirdre Williams wrote: > >And I am still in favour of cutting up the sentences. These sound >beautiful, mellifluous, but all of the subordinate clauses impede >comprehension, especially if there is any question of translation. > > > +1 for sentence chopping. > >Regards > > > f >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Feb 19 10:48:40 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 07:48:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: AW: [governance] WSIS III In-Reply-To: 2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068C8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de Message-ID: Thank you Wolfgang, Now that you have oriented the Camps for us, I can see that we (CS as a Group) needs to do something a bit more definitive: reasearch, thinking, and postulation on: Which "side" do we want to take [ITU | Icann | Independent] regarding IG of ccTDL's, iDNs, and CIR issues. What resultant mechanism would be the best for All (in particularly for people of a lesser standard of living). What contingencies work best with the Meta-Organizations [ITU|Icann|iDNs|ccTLDs|CIR|etc]. Where is each Stakeholder's perspective: aligned, determined, and understanding-of-perspective is interpreted. - This will take some time, I don't foresee any major paradigm-shifts in IG until WSIS III. My guess is that, it would take a Blue Ribbon Work Group 3-4 years to produce a thorough analysis and viable hypothesis of which could be marketed by WSIS III. (Taking a definitive stance upon WSIS III) I'm up for it, and willing to dedicate some resources (up to $1000 USD for technical support - web hosting) out of my pocket. Anyone wanting to match my offer or participate, publish your interest via this list. I personally or with the coordination of any University Research Team* that so desires, will Host this objective on an online effort under the CS Flag. * Wolfgang's Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, McKnight-Hofmann-Cogburn-Mueller's IGP, Bill Drake's The Graduate Institute, Jeanette Hofmann's Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, etc. etc. any University WG____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 19 12:55:57 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:55:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <9BD2F554-BB00-4995-85D9-AB6F7A5ED799@cafonso.ca> References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> ,<9BD2F554-BB00-4995-85D9-AB6F7A5ED799@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD0D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> I agree with Carlos' suggestion. We still need to add some honorifics right up front, as we are addressing the Sec Gen, and of course thanking him for his leadership. Lee ________________________________________ From: Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:25 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Deirdre Williams Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD What if we invert the text, putting the final block at the beginning followed by all reasoning, so the reader knows right away what we want? --c.a. enviado via iPhone On 19/02/2010, at 08:30, Deirdre Williams > wrote: The first and last paragraphs should each have an indication that the process - CSTD, ECOSOC, UN - is the customary one which has been used on each occasion up to now. We are not asking for a change. Considering that the statement is addressed to the Secretary-General Para 4 should be worded so that it does not appear to inform him about what he himself did. Perhaps you could use "remind"? And I am still in favour of cutting up the sentences. These sound beautiful, mellifluous, but all of the subordinate clauses impede comprehension, especially if there is any question of translation. Deirdre On 19 February 2010 05:22, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote: As per the latest comments received, here is a slightly rewritten combination of Parminder's new text with a couple of points from my original draft. So that we can move forward towards a consensus call next week, please try to confine your comments to either significant points of substance, or grammatical/typographical corrections, rather than just rewriting the same ideas in a different form. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Dear Sir, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the views expressed by several government delegates at the recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary-General's report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm, should be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. Indications given at the meeting that this might not be the case have caused some confusion, since this would mark a departure from established practice. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. In addition, consideration of the recommendations by the CSTD will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned actors, including governments, with this very important issue. The CSTD provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why the same should not apply to the Secretary-General's report on the IGF. We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, the UN Secretary-General's report on continuation of the IGF be made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the UN membership make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. -- 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 -- “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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Fri Feb 19 15:48:51 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:48:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: 71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org Message-ID: Jeremy, I think it wise for you to refresh your understanding of the Secretary-General of the United Nations [UNSYG] Ban Ki-moon, position. The role of the secretary-general http://www.un.org/sg/sgrole.shtml 4NI UN Reform: The UN Secretariat's mandate and roles http://www.the4ni.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=38 Ban Ki-moon: My priorities as Secretary-General http://www.un.org/sg/priority.shtml - Next, although your intentions for directly-contacting the Secretary-General regarding the IGF are well & good, I suggest that you may find that the Deputy Secretary-General Dr. Asha-Rose Migiro, would be more effective. http://www.un.org/sg/deputysg.shtml (scroll down to: 'THE POST' for info) ... The post of Deputy Secretary-General was established by the General Assembly at the end of 1997 as part of the reform of the United Nations, to help manage Secretariat operations and to ensure coherence of activities and programmes. The purpose was also to elevate the Organization's profile and leadership in the economic and social spheres. ... - The United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Mr. Sha Zukang, could also be approched. http://www.un.org/esa/desa/ousg/ -- IMO: For the most part, I think the moves already made by the UN are a done deal. The best bet is to focus energies on WSIS III, that door is still open, the IGF is going to run its course. Any Communiqué you have should be channeled through Markus Kummer, Nitan Desai, Chengetai Masango, and Jomo KS. Then Dr. Asha-Rose Migiro and Mr. Sha Zukang. (protocal) Please try a combination of these SG-alternate contacts, first. Good Luck. - Markus Kummer the Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Mr Kummer was appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General following the decision by the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to convene a multi-stakeholder platform to discuss Internet governance. Chengetai Masango Programme and Technology Manager of the Secretariat of the Internet Governace Forum. Jomo Kwame Sundaram [Jomo KS] (Frm. Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development in the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs) Chairman Nitin Desai the United Nations Secretary-General's Special Adviser for Internet Governance. e-mail: mkummer at unog.ch cmasango at unog.ch. jomo at un.org - Jomo K. S. (Frm) Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Two UN Plaza DC2-2324, NY, NY, USA 10017. Fax + 1-212-9631010. Tel +1-917-3673504. (office) U can also try ;-) University of Malaya Dept. of Applied Economics Room C 35 Kuala Lumpur 50603 MALAYSIA ---____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Feb 20 04:03:31 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:03:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] FYI CS & Mr. Sha References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> <9BD2F554-BB00-4995-85D9-AB6F7A5ED799@cafonso.ca> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD0D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068D3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Statement by Mr. Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs to the Civil Society Forum, "Copenhagen+15: Achieving a Society for All" New York, 2 February 2010 Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am pleased to address this Civil Society Forum, focused on "Copenhagen + 15: Achieving a Society for All". You have set yourselves the task of assessing the progress made since the World Summit for Social Development in 1995. Such an assessment should help identify how best to advance social development through social integration, the theme of the Commission for Social Development. We have seen some real progress at the global level. Copenhagen recognized that working towards an inclusive society requires urgent action to remove the barriers to inclusion faced by many groups. This recognition led to the development of significant mandates and instruments in the years following the World Social Summit. Let me illustrate a few of the important frameworks, in which Civil Society played a critical role. In 1995, a global agenda for youth was established by the World Programme of Action for Youth, which set in motion the identification of new priority areas for action. The World Assembly on Ageing adopted the International Plan of Action on Ageing in 2002. Its first review and appraisal five years later indicated several areas of success, including new social protection mechanisms to assist older persons. In 2006, the groundbreaking Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was adopted. Following its ratification, many Member States have enacted national legislation frameworks banning discrimination against persons with disabilities, and introduced policies to promote greater access to education, employment and health services. The rights of indigenous peoples are being more widely recognized in large measure, thanks to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly in 2006. The Declaration advocates social inclusion of indigenous people in society, at the same time affirming their right to maintain their distinct social and cultural institutions and practices. All these instruments have served as guidelines for the development of national policies and programmes to improve the situation of social groups. For instance, some Governments established or reformed social protection mechanisms for the most vulnerable. Many took measures to improve employment opportunities for young people and persons with disabilities. National legislation was adopted to do away with ageism, sexism and other forms of discrimination. Parliamentary quota systems improved the participation of women and minority groups in political decision-making in many countries as well. In addition to mandates aimed at improving the situation of specific groups, several regional and national frameworks for social integration have been recently established, such as "African Common Position on Social Integration", "Social Inclusion Principles for Australia" and National Action Plans for Social Inclusion in the member countries of the European Union to name but a few. Yet, despite this progress, much remains to be done. As social integration, together with poverty eradication and full employment, form the three mutually reinforcing pillars of Copenhagen, overall social development cannot be achieved without further efforts on this front. Ladies and Gentlemen, Civil society has a vital role to play in achieving social integration. Your support in designing, implementing and monitoring comprehensive and inclusive social policies is essential for these efforts to succeed. You can send a clear message to Governments that national policies to advance social integration should be based on global mandates already agreed upon and anchored within the frameworks of social justice, non-discrimination and inclusion of all members of society. You are in the best position to inform local Governments. What are the priorities of your communities? What needs to be done to improve conditions, on an urgent basis and over the longer-term? You have a special capacity to reach out to the marginalized and excluded among us, helping voices to be heard; supporting the fulfilment of their human rights. Your work at the grassroots level can mobilize local communities for collective action. You can help to develop concrete benchmarks for Governments to measure the progress of the social integration strategies they adopt. In sum, you have two profoundly important contributions to make: to help hold Governments accountable for the promises they have made at Copenhagen and since then; and to assist Governments and other partners in turning these commitments into reality on the ground. Ladies and Gentlemen, My Department greatly recognizes the efforts you have made to promote social integration. The recent survey on social integration, prepared by the NGO Committee for Social Development entitled: Social integration in action: stories from the grassroots provide many examples of the kind of good work that civil society organizations are doing. The survey demonstrates that action at the local level is making real progress. We need to draw on the extensive practical experience of your organizations and your support for those most marginalized and excluded. Let me close by thanking you for all your hard work in support of development efforts world-wide, and social integration initiatives on the ground. My Department also counts on your continuing commitment to bringing the world closer to the political, economic, ethical and spiritual vision for social development expressed 15 years ago: one "that is based on human dignity, human rights, equality, respect, peace, democracy, mutual responsibility and cooperation..." I hope that this session of the Commission for Social Development will result in concrete policy recommendations on how to bring us closer to this goal, a goal that cannot be achieved without your continuous support. Thank you. http://www.un.org/esa//desa/ousg/statements/2010/20100202_Civil_Society_Forum.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr Sat Feb 20 04:47:41 2010 From: nkurunziza1999 at yahoo.fr (Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 09:47:41 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes In-Reply-To: References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> Message-ID: <597113.79356.qm@web25902.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Hello all ! Thanks a lot Sivasubramanian Muthusamy for this text. It really helped me to understand more about the tension between ITU and Internet Community ! Sincerely NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul Tel : 783273867 ________________________________ De : Sivasubramanian Muthusamy À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez Envoyé le : Mar 16 Février 2010, 21 h 30 min 53 s Objet : Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes Hello Katiza ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the dictum that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away from the sea shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea; if the capital is close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to the members of the Government, so there is greater likelihood of the merchants corrupting the politicians). Telecom corporations have the rare advantage of being seated alongside Government at the ITU. This anomalous position makes it possible for the telecoms to exercise an undue influence on governments, unnoticed by the Governments. The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established standards for telegraphic and phone communication. Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes in their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a part of this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with a business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part. This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions of any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence national and global policies related to all communication. ITU's core concern is that it should govern and control all business of communication. The ITU sets policies and rules in all communication: Telegraphs, telephones, mobile phones and it also manages the RF spectrum and satellite communications with the exception of the Internet. ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by telecom companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take charge of the Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not happen as the Internet took shape as a free and open medium. The Internet evolved to be way beyond the purview of the ITU and it shape as a world on its own. In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it couldn't succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered the Civil Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not decision) related to the Internet. This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization with its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet threatened the business models of telecom companies as technologies such as email, VOIP began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found a new breed of phone companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU rules becoming phenomenally successful and an emerging threat to phone company revenues. The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all of which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet architecture and Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So the ITU tried to interject itself in the Internet Standards process. The Critical Internet Resources could be brought under the ITU umbrella by taking over a vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That could ensure a technical dominance of the Internet by the ITU. But for overall control, ITU needs to take over Internet Governance with the argument that easily fools at least a few policy makers: that the ITU is a well organized, 145 year old organization that has 191 national governments as its members. It attempts to derive a position in policy making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) by interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in reality a business union. The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an attempt to position itself / retain its position in the policy arena. The ITU asserts its position in policy making in subtle ways. For instance, at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said " We have no intention whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what the ICANN is doing best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what is the mandate of the ITU of policy-making, public-policy issues and so on” That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that policy making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate and unequaled role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was somehow allowed to slip in without a challenge at the IGF. At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation of IP addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the Secretary General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to take over ICANN. ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes the 'tensions'. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > > > >Greetings: > >>Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. > >>Thanks. > > > >>On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > >>>My constructive dissection: >> >> >>>>>None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; >>> >>for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN >>>>Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract >>>>with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We >>>>do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body. >> >>>>I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath >>>>a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. >>>>Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more directly. (Spit >>>>it out) >> >>>>Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is to be >>>>subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain independent >>>>of the UN umbrella. >> >>>>I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF for serval >>>>reasons, >>>>1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to hose the >>>>IGF >>>>2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among Equals' (among >>>>all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by the MDG and >>>>WSIS Declarations. >>>>3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement establishes the >>>>IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. >>>>... >>>>Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese & Markus) >>>>the fuel to fight. >>>>I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact now is the >>>>time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La Chapelle puts >>>>it can come later. >> >>>>Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too "Piercing the >>>>corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the UN >>>>Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the >>>>determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real-time and >>>>transparent to All. >> >>>>I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They (the >>>>UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in regards to >>>>Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/actions were >>>>evidence of the fact. >>>>--- >> >>>>* Piercing the corporate Veil >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil >>>>____________________________________________________________ >>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>>>For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>>>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >>For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sat Feb 20 05:03:42 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:03:42 +0000 Subject: [governance] FYI CS & Mr. Sha In-Reply-To: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068D3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> <9BD2F554-BB00-4995-85D9-AB6F7A5ED799@cafonso.ca> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD0D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A068D3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Message-ID: <4B7FB37E.7030109@wzb.eu> Thank you Wolfgang, really revealing. At least the devision of roles is clear: Governments make and adopt policy frameworks while civil society is being subject to such frameworks; and may contribute to social integration, preferably of the most vulnerable. Multi-stakeholder approaches belong to another planet. jeanette Kleinwächter, Wolfgang wrote: > Statement by Mr. Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and > Social Affairs to the Civil Society Forum, "Copenhagen+15: Achieving > a Society for All" New York, 2 February 2010 > > > Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, > > > I am pleased to address this Civil Society Forum, focused on > "Copenhagen + 15: Achieving a Society for All". > > You have set yourselves the task of assessing the progress made since > the World Summit for Social Development in 1995. Such an assessment > should help identify how best to advance social development through > social integration, the theme of the Commission for Social > Development. > > We have seen some real progress at the global level. Copenhagen > recognized that working towards an inclusive society requires urgent > action to remove the barriers to inclusion faced by many groups. This > recognition led to the development of significant mandates and > instruments in the years following the World Social Summit. > > Let me illustrate a few of the important frameworks, in which Civil > Society played a critical role. > > In 1995, a global agenda for youth was established by the World > Programme of Action for Youth, which set in motion the identification > of new priority areas for action. The World Assembly on Ageing > adopted the International Plan of Action on Ageing in 2002. Its first > review and appraisal five years later indicated several areas of > success, including new social protection mechanisms to assist older > persons. > > In 2006, the groundbreaking Convention on the Rights of Persons with > Disabilities was adopted. Following its ratification, many Member > States have enacted national legislation frameworks banning > discrimination against persons with disabilities, and introduced > policies to promote greater access to education, employment and > health services. > > The rights of indigenous peoples are being more widely recognized in > large measure, thanks to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights > of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the General Assembly in 2006. The > Declaration advocates social inclusion of indigenous people in > society, at the same time affirming their right to maintain their > distinct social and cultural institutions and practices. > > All these instruments have served as guidelines for the development > of national policies and programmes to improve the situation of > social groups. > > For instance, some Governments established or reformed social > protection mechanisms for the most vulnerable. > > Many took measures to improve employment opportunities for young > people and persons with disabilities. > > National legislation was adopted to do away with ageism, sexism and > other forms of discrimination. > > Parliamentary quota systems improved the participation of women and > minority groups in political decision-making in many countries as > well. > > In addition to mandates aimed at improving the situation of specific > groups, several regional and national frameworks for social > integration have been recently established, such as "African Common > Position on Social Integration", "Social Inclusion Principles for > Australia" and National Action Plans for Social Inclusion in the > member countries of the European Union to name but a few. > > Yet, despite this progress, much remains to be done. As social > integration, together with poverty eradication and full employment, > form the three mutually reinforcing pillars of Copenhagen, overall > social development cannot be achieved without further efforts on this > front. > > Ladies and Gentlemen, > > Civil society has a vital role to play in achieving social > integration. Your support in designing, implementing and monitoring > comprehensive and inclusive social policies is essential for these > efforts to succeed. > > You can send a clear message to Governments that national policies to > advance social integration should be based on global mandates already > agreed upon and anchored within the frameworks of social justice, > non-discrimination and inclusion of all members of society. > > You are in the best position to inform local Governments. What are > the priorities of your communities? What needs to be done to improve > conditions, on an urgent basis and over the longer-term? > > You have a special capacity to reach out to the marginalized and > excluded among us, helping voices to be heard; supporting the > fulfilment of their human rights. > > Your work at the grassroots level can mobilize local communities for > collective action. > > You can help to develop concrete benchmarks for Governments to > measure the progress of the social integration strategies they adopt. > > > In sum, you have two profoundly important contributions to make: to > help hold Governments accountable for the promises they have made at > Copenhagen and since then; and to assist Governments and other > partners in turning these commitments into reality on the ground. > > Ladies and Gentlemen, > > My Department greatly recognizes the efforts you have made to promote > social integration. The recent survey on social integration, prepared > by the NGO Committee for Social Development entitled: Social > integration in action: stories from the grassroots provide many > examples of the kind of good work that civil society organizations > are doing. The survey demonstrates that action at the local level is > making real progress. We need to draw on the extensive practical > experience of your organizations and your support for those most > marginalized and excluded. > > Let me close by thanking you for all your hard work in support of > development efforts world-wide, and social integration initiatives on > the ground. My Department also counts on your continuing commitment > to bringing the world closer to the political, economic, ethical and > spiritual vision for social development expressed 15 years ago: one > "that is based on human dignity, human rights, equality, respect, > peace, democracy, mutual responsibility and cooperation..." > > I hope that this session of the Commission for Social Development > will result in concrete policy recommendations on how to bring us > closer to this goal, a goal that cannot be achieved without your > continuous support. > > Thank you. > > http://www.un.org/esa//desa/ousg/statements/2010/20100202_Civil_Society_Forum.html > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ You > received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Sat Feb 20 11:11:55 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 18:11:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD0D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> <9BD2F554-BB00-4995-85D9-AB6F7A5ED799@cafonso.ca> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD0D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Lee, Meaning? "We still need to add some honorifics" Regards, Rui On 19 February 2010 19:55, Lee W McKnight wrote: > I agree with Carlos' suggestion. > > We still need to add some honorifics right up front, as we are addressing > the Sec Gen, and of course thanking him for his leadership. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:25 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Deirdre Williams > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > CSTD > > What if we invert the text, putting the final block at the beginning > followed by all reasoning, so the reader knows right away what we want? > > --c.a. > > enviado via iPhone > > On 19/02/2010, at 08:30, Deirdre Williams > wrote: > > The first and last paragraphs should each have an indication that the > process - CSTD, ECOSOC, UN - is the customary one which has been used on > each occasion up to now. We are not asking for a change. > > Considering that the statement is addressed to the Secretary-General Para 4 > should be worded so that it does not appear to inform him about what he > himself did. Perhaps you could use "remind"? > > And I am still in favour of cutting up the sentences. These sound > beautiful, mellifluous, but all of the subordinate clauses impede > comprehension, especially if there is any question of translation. > > Deirdre > > > On 19 February 2010 05:22, Jeremy Malcolm < > jeremy at ciroap.org> wrote: > As per the latest comments received, here is a slightly rewritten > combination of Parminder's new text with a couple of points from my original > draft. So that we can move forward towards a consensus call next week, > please try to confine your comments to either significant points of > substance, or grammatical/typographical corrections, rather than just > rewriting the same ideas in a different form. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS > SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the views > expressed by several government delegates at the recent open consultations > on the IGF that the UN Secretary-General's report and recommendations on the > desirability of the continuation of the Forum, based on formal consultations > at IGF Sharm, should be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 > before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. > > Indications given at the meeting that this might not be the case have > caused some confusion, since this would mark a departure from established > practice. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS > follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS > issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed > consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. > > In addition, consideration of the recommendations by the CSTD will enable > widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned actors, including > governments, with this very important issue. The CSTD provides relatively > greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following > its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach" > (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, > 2008/217 and 2008/218. > > It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on > "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred > by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it > clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS > follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why the same should > not apply to the Secretary-General's report on the IGF. > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, the UN Secretary-General's report on continuation of the IGF be > made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the > UN membership make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per > the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > -- > 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. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org governance at lists.cpsr.org> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 governance at lists.cpsr.org> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org> > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 20 22:14:32 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 22:14:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> <9BD2F554-BB00-4995-85D9-AB6F7A5ED799@cafonso.ca> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD0D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu>, Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Rui, Meaning, I don't believe the usual practice in addressing the Sec Gen is just to say: hey howya doin... Something slightly more formal may be called for even if we're all hangin on the net writing this up. Since I don't personally make it a practice of writing the sec gen often, I'm not sure what exactly the formula is. But I suspect someone like my colleague John Mathiason, or Bertrand, would. Maybe it is 'Dear Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, we thank you for (insert thanks here) . We appreciate (insert something we appreciate here). We would like to draw your attention to....(insert our letter here). ________________________________________ From: Rui Correia [correia.rui at gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 11:11 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Lee, Meaning? "We still need to add some honorifics" Regards, Rui On 19 February 2010 19:55, Lee W McKnight > wrote: I agree with Carlos' suggestion. We still need to add some honorifics right up front, as we are addressing the Sec Gen, and of course thanking him for his leadership. Lee ________________________________________ From: Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:25 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Deirdre Williams Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD What if we invert the text, putting the final block at the beginning followed by all reasoning, so the reader knows right away what we want? --c.a. enviado via iPhone On 19/02/2010, at 08:30, Deirdre Williams >> wrote: The first and last paragraphs should each have an indication that the process - CSTD, ECOSOC, UN - is the customary one which has been used on each occasion up to now. We are not asking for a change. Considering that the statement is addressed to the Secretary-General Para 4 should be worded so that it does not appear to inform him about what he himself did. Perhaps you could use "remind"? And I am still in favour of cutting up the sentences. These sound beautiful, mellifluous, but all of the subordinate clauses impede comprehension, especially if there is any question of translation. Deirdre On 19 February 2010 05:22, Jeremy Malcolm <>jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote: As per the latest comments received, here is a slightly rewritten combination of Parminder's new text with a couple of points from my original draft. So that we can move forward towards a consensus call next week, please try to confine your comments to either significant points of substance, or grammatical/typographical corrections, rather than just rewriting the same ideas in a different form. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Dear Sir, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the views expressed by several government delegates at the recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary-General's report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm, should be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. Indications given at the meeting that this might not be the case have caused some confusion, since this would mark a departure from established practice. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. In addition, consideration of the recommendations by the CSTD will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned actors, including governments, with this very important issue. The CSTD provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why the same should not apply to the Secretary-General's report on the IGF. We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, the UN Secretary-General's report on continuation of the IGF be made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the UN membership make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. -- 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 -- “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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 21 00:48:24 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:18:24 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B7D67EE.7030800@wzb.eu> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D21B5.1000907@itforchange.net> <4B7D67EE.7030800@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <4B80C928.8080403@itforchange.net> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> Hello >> >> As observed, Parminder's draft is good, but when combined with parts >> of Jeremy's draft, it would be even more powerful. > > Perhaps combining the two would be a good compromise. I still think it > is not necessary to explain to the UN why CSTD needs to get the report > in May. The follow para from Parminder is good for educating > ourselves, but I don't think UN headquarters need this explanation: > > However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the > > CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer > > it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to > > consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the > > matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on > > continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier. > > jeanette We can leave this para out, but I will explain its rationale. The point was to subtly suggest how an bureaucratic decision (a whim, if not a deliberate effort) of not presenting the report to 2010 session of CSTD will have the effect of subverting the political (and thus much more substantive by UN considerations) 'desire' of ECOSOC, which kind of thing is normally taken with considerable seriousness in the UN or for that matter in any political establishment. Parminder > > >> >> Some of my comments are inline within Parminder's draft and within >> Jeremy's draft as quoted. >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Parminder > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for >>>> readability, thanks Deirdre. >>>> >>>> I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - >>>> >>>> 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be >>>> reviewed etc...) >>>> >>> Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, >>> and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try >>> to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by >>> (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical >>> to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than >>> "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we >>> can finalise this soon. >>> >>> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED >>> NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON >>> >>> Dear Sir, >>> >>> >> >> I still prefer that we start with >> >> IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the >> recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary >> General's report and recommendations on ' the desirability of the >> continuation of the Forum ' based on formal consultations at IGF >> Sharm be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before >> it is considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. >> >> The reference to the "views expressed by many government delegates" >> is good, but this opening line is too long. As a suggestion, breaking >> this up into two sentences such as " IGC exphasizes that the UN >> Secretary General's report on the continuation of IGF be presented to >> the CSTD in its May sesssion before being presented to the ECOSOC and >> UN Assembly, as recommended by many Government delegates at the >> February 2010 Open Consultations." This report by the Secretary >> General on the 'Desirability and Continuation of the Internet >> Governance Forum' is based on formal consultations at the IGF 2009 >> held at Sharm el Sheikh and reflects the wishes of the participants >> of the forum. " could be more readable. >> >> >> This will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of >> concerned actors, including governments, with this very important >> issue. CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS >> follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement >> with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best >> basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC >> and the UN >> Assembly. >> >> >> Here we may insert a passage from Jeremy's draft " The Economic and >> Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given >> responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, >> including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were >> delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For >> this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the >> multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in >> the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions >> 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these >> decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private >> sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the >> CSTD... With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual >> ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including >> assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other >> stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's >> process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as >> innovative and successful." >> >> As a preamble we can include the two paragraphs from Jeremy's draft >> "In the Tunis Agenda 2005 .... (Para 7) was the result of this." and >> " The Economic and Social Council of the ..... participate in the >> work of the CSTD" which is well researched and gives the appearance >> of a well drafted diplomatic statement. >> >> >> We further agree with the statements made by some government >> representatives >> >> >> To make this more effective, we can name the Governments and quote >> what they said. >> >> in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be no logic to >> short circuit the normal process of consideration of issues >> concerned with WSIS, going against the practice of the past. >> >> It does not clearly convey that the UNDESA representative declared at >> the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the >> report to the CSTD". We may have to say it here. >> >> Also, Jeremy's draft expresses our concerns clearly: " to move the >> debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate >> among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a >> return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private >> sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of >> the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002." >> >> So, we can think of combining Parminder's draft with Jeremy's draft, >> for better impact. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> >> >> >> It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's >> report on 'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC >> has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior >> consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally >> prefer CSTD's views on >> >> >> issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no >> reason why the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF. >> >> However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the >> CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer >> it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to >> consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the >> matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on >> continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent >> process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be >> made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will >> help the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on >> this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. >> >> After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the >> relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be >> the key factor in the present context) . >> >> Parminder >> >> >>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong >>> supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique >>> multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as >>> a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by >>> several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open >>> consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation >>> meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the >>> continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on >>> Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in >>> the past. >>> >>> In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" >>> (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both >>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>> stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual >>> achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). >>> Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle >>> for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an >>> equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result >>> of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society >>> representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in >>> particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva >>> in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States >>> (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also >>> demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working >>> Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a >>> locus for > "multi- >>> stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. >>> >>> The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) >>> was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS >>> outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work >>> were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. >>> For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the >>> multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion >>> in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions >>> 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these >>> decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private >>> sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of >>> the CSTD. >>> >>> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC >>> resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including >>> assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other >>> stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's >>> process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as >>> innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a >>> sudden departure from this process on the question of the >>> continuation of the IGF. >>> >>> The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we >>> would welcome further enhancement of the participation of >>> non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it >>> stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder >>> involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has >>> accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their >>> expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More >>> importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but >>> which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private >>> sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. >>> >>> Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an >>> open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental >>> stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil >>> society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after >>> the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real >>> debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to >>> change this. >>> >>> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by >>> transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to >>> the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be >>> open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a >>> unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do >>> this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution >>> on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the >>> General Assembly might well be reduced. >>> We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our >>> support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum >>> for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located >>> in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >>> contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social >>> Affairs (UNDESA). >>> >>> Thank you for your consideration. >>> >>> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Feb 21 02:25:54 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:55:54 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002180526g4fbed642yc22d7f6d4ef5cdf2@mail.gmail.com> References: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D08F2.3040501@wzb.eu> <4B7D1EC4.8080804@wzb.eu> <73C9A686-AE93-4EF0-8125-1B8D67BDC766@ciroap.org> <4B7D2AA4.5030203@itforchange.net> <954259bd1002180526g4fbed642yc22d7f6d4ef5cdf2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B80E002.9070901@itforchange.net> Jeanette and Bertrand, First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this procedural part. However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement friendly and not developed countries? Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls within their own territories. Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of IGF, with no consideration to the fact that 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to which it does so. 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make recommendations where necessary. I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email. >para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or >No question. Section 74 of TA reads "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum ..........' and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review". Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into the oblivion. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > Parminder wrote : > > In fact the governments who spoke *were not thinking of > multistakeholderism* but underlying their objections was a > different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is > up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's > report give them a better chance to put their views in more > solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. > Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC > obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice > versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government > who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the > concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. > These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS > follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. > > > I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of > discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in > Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. > > The reasoning is as follows : > - the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from > the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group > - even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately > signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have > played an important role in its definition > - the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its > inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG) > - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the > continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly > revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get > into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and > operational organization of the Forum. > > In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly > or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the > Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the > IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its > mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate > entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it > is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a > discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even > better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature. > > The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to > preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > > Best > > Bertrand > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Feb 21 03:05:46 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:35:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> <9BD2F554-BB00-4995-85D9-AB6F7A5ED799@cafonso.ca> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD0D@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD23@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: +1 On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: > Rui, > > Meaning, I don't believe the usual practice in addressing the Sec Gen is just to say: hey howya doin... > > Something slightly more formal may be called for even if we're all hangin on the net writing this up. > > Since I don't personally make it a practice of writing the sec gen often, I'm not sure what exactly the formula is. > > But I suspect someone like my colleague John Mathiason, or Bertrand, would. +1 > > Maybe it is 'Dear Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, we thank you for (insert thanks here) . We appreciate (insert something we appreciate here). > > We would like to draw your attention to....(insert our letter here). > > > > ________________________________________ > From: Rui Correia [correia.rui at gmail.com] > Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 11:11 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee W McKnight > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > Lee, > > Meaning? > > "We still need to add some honorifics" > > Regards, > > Rui > > On 19 February 2010 19:55, Lee W McKnight > wrote: > I agree with Carlos' suggestion. > > We still need to add some honorifics right up front, as we are addressing the Sec Gen, and of course thanking him for his leadership. > > Lee > ________________________________________ > From: Carlos A. Afonso [ca at cafonso.ca] > Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 7:25 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Deirdre Williams > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD > > What if we invert the text, putting the final block at the beginning followed by all reasoning, so the reader knows right away what we want? > > --c.a. > > enviado via iPhone > > On 19/02/2010, at 08:30, Deirdre Williams >> wrote: > > The first and last paragraphs should each have an indication that the process - CSTD, ECOSOC, UN - is the customary one which has been used on each occasion up to now. We are not asking for a change. > > Considering that the statement is addressed to the Secretary-General Para 4 should be worded so that it does not appear to inform him about what he himself did. Perhaps you could use "remind"? > > And I am still in favour of cutting up the sentences. These sound beautiful, mellifluous, but all of the subordinate clauses impede comprehension, especially if there is any question of translation. > > Deirdre > > > On 19 February 2010 05:22, Jeremy Malcolm <>jeremy at ciroap.org>> wrote: > As per the latest comments received, here is a slightly rewritten combination of Parminder's new text with a couple of points from my original draft.  So that we can move forward towards a consensus call next week, please try to confine your comments to either significant points of substance, or grammatical/typographical corrections, rather than just rewriting the same ideas in a different form. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the views expressed by several government delegates at the recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary-General's report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm, should be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. > > Indications given at the meeting that this might not be the case have caused some confusion, since this would mark a departure from established practice.  The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. > > In addition, consideration of the recommendations by the CSTD will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned actors, including governments, with this very important issue.  The CSTD provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach"  (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. > > It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why the same should not apply to the Secretary-General's report on the IGF. > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, the UN Secretary-General's report on continuation of the IGF be made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the UN membership make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > -- > 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 > > > > -- > “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 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >    governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ________________________________________________ > > > Rui Correia > Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant > Angola Liaison Consultant > 2 Cutten St > Horison > Roodepoort-Johannesburg, > South Africa > Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 > Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 > _______________ > áâãçéêíóôõúç > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Feb 21 05:54:05 2010 From: jlfullsack at orange.fr (Jean-Louis FULLSACK) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:54:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call In-Reply-To: <597113.79356.qm@web25902.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> <597113.79356.qm@web25902.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2576009.61478.1266749645652.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e32> Dear Jean-Paul I'd suggest you to cross Siva's opinion on the ITU and its relation to IG, with other ones and/or other information for shaping your own opinion. This would be really helpful to understand the actuel situation and the problematics on stake. Best regards Jean-Louis Fullsack > Message du 20/02/10 10:48 > De : "Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA" > A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" > Copie à : > Objet : Re : [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes > > Hello all ! > Thanks a lot Sivasubramanian Muthusamy for this text. It really helped me to understand more about the tension between ITU and Internet Community ! > > Sincerely > NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul > > Tel : 783273867 > > De : Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez > Envoyé le : Mar 16 Février 2010, 21 h 30 min 53 s > Objet : Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes > > Hello Katiza > > ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the dictum that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away from the sea shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea; if the capital is close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to the members of the Government, so there is greater likelihood of the merchants corrupting the politicians). Telecom corporations have the rare advantage of being seated alongside Government at the ITU. This anomalous position makes it possible for the telecoms to exercise an undue influence on governments, unnoticed by the Governments. > > The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established standards for telegraphic and phone communication. > > Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes in their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a part of this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with a business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part. > > This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions of any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence national and global policies related to all communication. ITU's core concern is that it should govern and control all business of communication. The ITU sets policies and rules in all communication: Telegraphs, telephones, mobile phones and it also manages the RF spectrum and satellite communications with the exception of the Internet. > > ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by telecom companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take charge of the Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not happen as the Internet took shape as a free and open medium. The Internet evolved to be way beyond the purview of the ITU and it shape as a world on its own. > > In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it couldn't succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered the Civil Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not decision) related to the Internet. > > This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization with its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet threatened the business models of telecom companies as technologies such as email, VOIP began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found a new breed of phone companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU rules becoming phenomenally successful and an emerging threat to phone company revenues. > > The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all of which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet architecture and Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So the ITU tried to interject itself in the Internet Standards process. The Critical Internet Resources could be brought under the ITU umbrella by taking over a vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That could ensure a technical dominance of the Internet by the ITU. But for overall control, ITU needs to take over Internet Governance with the argument that easily fools at least a few policy makers: that the ITU is a well organized, 145 year old organization that has 191 national governments as its members. It attempts to derive a position in policy making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) by interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in reality a business union. > > The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an attempt to position itself / retain its position in the policy arena. The ITU asserts its position in policy making in subtle ways. For instance, at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said " We have no intention whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what the ICANN is doing best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what is the mandate of the ITU of policy-making, public-policy issues and so on” > > That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that policy making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate and unequaled role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was somehow allowed to slip in without a challenge at the IGF. > > At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation of IP addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the Secretary General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to take over ICANN. > > ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes the 'tensions'. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez wrote: > Greetings: > > Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. > > Thanks. > > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: > > My constructive dissection: > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an institution; > for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN > Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under contract > with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). We > do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN body. > > I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath > a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. > Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more directly. (Spit > it out) > > Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is to be > subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain independent > of the UN umbrella. > > I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF for serval > reasons, > 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to hose the > IGF > 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among Equals' (among > all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by the MDG and > WSIS Declarations. > 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement establishes the > IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. > ... > Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese & Markus) > the fuel to fight. > I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact now is the > time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La Chapelle puts > it can come later. > > Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too "Piercing the > corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the UN > Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the > determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real-time and > transparent to All. > > I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They (the > UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in regards to > Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/actions were > evidence of the fact. > --- > > * Piercing the corporate Veil > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 (0.4 Ko) ] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Sun Feb 21 06:49:33 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:19:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call In-Reply-To: <2576009.61478.1266749645652.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e32> References: <7C7F1A3B-D8BE-4309-A85D-AAC674B51912@datos-personales.org> <597113.79356.qm@web25902.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <2576009.61478.1266749645652.JavaMail.www@wwinf1e32> Message-ID: Hello Jean-Paul, I agree with Jean-Louis' comment on this. In particular you could pay attention to Bill Drake's comments ( as also my response to that ). Shiva On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Jean-Louis FULLSACK wrote: > Dear Jean-Paul > > I'd suggest you to cross Siva's opinion on the ITU and its relation to IG, > with other ones and/or other information for shaping your own opinion. This > would be really helpful to understand the actuel situation and the > problematics on stake. > > Best regards > Jean-Louis Fullsack > > > > >> Message du 20/02/10 10:48 >> De : "Jean Paul NKURUNZIZA" >> A : governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Sivasubramanian Muthusamy" >> Copie à : >> Objet : Re : [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes >> >> > > Hello all ! >> Thanks a lot Sivasubramanian Muthusamy for this text. It really helped me >> to understand more about the tension between ITU and Internet Community ! >> >> Sincerely >> NKURUNZIZA Jean Paul >> >> > > Tel : 783273867 > >> > >> > > ________________________________ > De : Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> À : governance at lists.cpsr.org; Katitza Rodriguez >> Envoyé le : Mar 16 Février 2010, 21 h 30 min 53 s >> Objet : Re: [governance] IGC statement REVISION 3.0: consensus call comes >> >> Hello Katiza >> >> ITU is an anomaly that deviates from the ancient wisdom behind the dictum >> that "a nation's capital should be situated as farther away from the sea >> shore as possible": (merchants congregate near the sea; if the capital is >> close to the sea, merchants would have proximity to the members of the >> Government, so there is greater likelihood of the merchants corrupting the >> politicians). Telecom corporations have the rare advantage of being seated >> alongside Government at the ITU. This anomalous position makes it possible >> for the telecoms to exercise an undue influence on governments, unnoticed by >> the Governments. >> >> The ITU was established because telegraphic communication needed to be >> standardized for interoperability across continents. ITU established >> standards for telegraphic and phone communication. >> >> Governments chose to be part of the ITU when Governments owned telecom >> corporations. Over time, most Governments have withdrawn their stakes in >> their telecommunication corporations, but haven't ceased to be a part of >> this business cartel. The result is that we are now left with a >> business-government nexus, of which unwittingly Governments are a part. >> >> This status is a unique status, not conferred upon the business unions of >> any other industry. ITU has been in a position to influence national and >> global policies related to all communication. ITU's core concern is that it >> should govern and control all business of communication. The ITU sets >> policies and rules in all communication: Telegraphs, telephones, mobile >> phones and it also manages the RF spectrum and satellite communications with >> the exception of the Internet. >> >> ITU's idea of an Internet was a networking solution provided by telecom >> companies on a commercial business model. ITU tried to take charge of the >> Internet in the early days of Internet. This did not happen as the Internet >> took shape as a free and open medium. The Internet evolved to be way beyond >> the purview of the ITU and it shape as a world on its own. >> >> In its recent attempts to impose itself in Internet Governance, it >> couldn't succeed because the mutli-stakeholder approach has rendered the >> Civil Society as a powerful force in any policy debate (if not decision) >> related to the Internet. >> >> This must have made the ITU very uncomfortable and as an organization with >> its anachronistic status as a UN Agency, the ITU The Internet threatened the >> business models of telecom companies as technologies such as email, VOIP >> began to be adopted worldwide. The ITU also found a new breed of phone >> companies like Skype that didn't obey the ITU rules becoming phenomenally >> successful and an emerging threat to phone company revenues. >> >> The freedom of the Internet is because of the open architecture of the >> Internet and due to such principles as the end to end principle, all of >> which could be easily redefined if the task of Internet architecture and >> Internet standards comes under the ITU umbrella. So the ITU tried to >> interject itself in the Internet Standards process. The Critical Internet >> Resources could be brought under the ITU umbrella by taking over a >> vulnerable corporation called ICANN. That could ensure a technical dominance >> of the Internet by the ITU. But for overall control, ITU needs to take over >> Internet Governance with the argument that easily fools at least a few >> policy makers: that the ITU is a well organized, 145 year old organization >> that has 191 national governments as its members. It attempts to derive a >> position in policy making (which is otherwise in the realm of Governments) >> by interjecting itself in the policy arena as a UN Agency, while it is in >> reality a business union. >> >> The ITU organizes the World Telecommunication Policy Forum in an attempt >> to position itself / retain its position in the policy arena. The ITU >> asserts its position in policy making in subtle ways. For instance, at the >> IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, an ITU representative said " We have no intention >> whatsoever to do the business of the ICANN, what the ICANN is doing >> best...everybody doesn't want the ICANN to do what is the mandate of the ITU >> of policy-making, public-policy issues and so on” >> >> That was subtle. The ITU representative had managed to assert that policy >> making is ITU's birthright and that the ITU has a legitimate and unequaled >> role in policy making. This inappropriate statement was somehow allowed to >> slip in without a challenge at the IGF. >> >> At Egypt, ITU's representatives raised questions about IPv6 allocation >> system, in an attempt to bring the ITU into the function of allocation of IP >> addresses. This was mild compared to a blatant speech by the Secretary >> General at ICANN Cairo, which almost amounted to a bid to take over ICANN. >> >> ITU's constant attempts to gain a "controlling interest" in Internet >> Governance is resisted by the Internet Community. This is what causes the >> 'tensions'. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > > > >> > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:21 PM, Katitza Rodriguez > wrote: >> > > Greetings: >> >> Can someone explain me the ITU-IGF tension? I do not follow ITU. >> >> Thanks. > >> >> >> On Jan 21, 2010, at 11:42 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote: >> >> > > My constructive dissection: >> >> > > None of these suggestions would fundamentally alter the IGF as an > institution; >> > > for example, we are content that it remain formally convened by the UN >> Secretary General, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >> contract >> with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs >> (UNDESA).  We >> do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving underneath a different UN >> body. >> >> I take it that: "... We do not see any benefit to the IGF in moving >> underneath >> a different UN body. ..." addresses the ITU's position. >> Myself, I see no insult in addressing the ITU's position more directly. >> (Spit >> it out) >> >> Add something like this: And it is genraly felt that if the IGF is to be >> subsumed by the ITU, then IGC members would prefer the IGF remain >> independent >> of the UN umbrella. >> >> I am suggesting to leave open 'The-Thought' of an Independent IGF for >> serval >> reasons, >> 1. There may be Other UN Branches (Other than the ITU) that want to hose >> the >> IGF >> 2. It may be that the IGF can be Independent and 'First among Equals' >> (among >> all the UN Branches) in respect to Internet Policy, underwritten by the >> MDG and >> WSIS Declarations. >> 3. if the IGF is in fact slated to conclude, the statement establishes the >> IGC's commitment to the IGF's ongoing Independence. >> ... >> Don't be Shy, the Chair at the ITU certainly is not. Give them (Dese & >> Markus) >> the fuel to fight. >> I don't feel you'll insult anyone by being Frank & Direct, in fact now is >> the >> time to do just that, the delicate 'Modalities' as Bertrand de La Chapelle >> puts >> it can come later. >> >> Else where in your statement, you should add something a-kin too "Piercing >> the >> corporate Veil", that is make reference to the 'Invisibility' of the UN >> Umbrella Insider negotiations (UN inside modalities) regarding the >> determination of the IGF's composition, that should be made real-time and >> transparent to All. >> >> I use the 'Piercing the corporate Veil' analogy because I feel They (the >> UNSG/UNDESA/ITU/IGF Chairs) have broken their contract with US, in regards >> to >> Transparency of the final negotiations. Last Year's transactions/actions >> were >> evidence of the fact. >> --- >> >> * Piercing the corporate Veil >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piercing_the_corporate_veil >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >>    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>    governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 (0.4 Ko) ] > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Feb 21 07:58:33 2010 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:58:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [cccun] *op ed query*: Do reactions to privacy and identityissues vary with age? New lawsuit from West Coast netizens v. the big G.?. In-Reply-To: <4B80DD34.3010706@cox.net> References: <45ed74051002201619q3ee49270ua8afe7c10d4e204e@mail.gmail.com> <4B80DD34.3010706@cox.net> Message-ID: <45ed74051002210458k20b4b600q7dd82b73ea6e6e1d@mail.gmail.com> *----- respectful interfaces e-note 022010 - cyberspace - -----* Please note the link flush left on the next line for one sort of reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics Dear James, Thank you, your post is terrific and I would like to share it with others. And we've met now. Well met! You so appropriately raise many challenging and frontal issues and I say this not to flatter but with some genuine appreciation - though the lore is that flattery rarely fails in full. I am going to take some time before responding to your individual posits and I think others will also be intrigued. I respond here, of course welcoming feedback, only re the l*inguistic *or *psycholinguistic *(themselves perhaps historically fleeting) terms that start with "cyber." Except for one of the U.N. Security "canines" at N.Y. Headquarters that bears this name and thus maybe sort of an absolute in this time/space slice, is it not the case that since at least Norbert Weiner's '48 "cybernetics" re. control and systems theory (we can check this) the term has attached itself to electronic communications in *descriptive *not necessarily *prescriptive *fashion (?) - as many terms do,operationally, as tools (some say tools of thoughts). Excellent if it can expand beyond the narrow bandwidth of the Web or the Internet - and not indeed shrink down to a hardened set of frozen, non-evolving verbal cliches. So, *accord *on many of your challenging points. Thanks ever so much for your post - and your presence., itself supporting an enlarging evolution of concepts and facts. With sincere regards, and *respectfully interfacing*, Linda M F. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:13 AM, James T. Mc Guiness wrote: > Dear Dr. Misek-Falkoff, > > I don't believe we've met as I was active in the CCC as their newsletter > editor back in the 90's and, though I've paid my dues to revive my interest, > I've moved to Virginia and am not likely to be showing up at any general > meetings any time soon . I felt compelled to comment (even if I'm far afield > of the intent), I have made cyberspace and cyber culture theoretics my > passion for almost two decades and just hearing or reading expression of > issues "cyber", jump-starts my interest. > > In my view, the phenomenon we see spun around the press as "cyberspace" and > it's offshoots such as "cyber-libel" is little more than sensationalist > "buzzwordism" as cyberspace is still an unrealized potential far beyond what > the Internet amounts to. Forgive my forwardness and please don't take this > as a personal criticism as it seems your writing is a reaction to floating > misnomers and not a personal assertions of their validity. If it's OK with > you I just like to share insights and vision to voice my perspective on the > subject. Firstly, there is no such thing as cyberspace. I wish there were > but there isn't. I hope to be part of creating the real thing. The Internet > can not live up to the phenomenon called cyberspace. The Internet is an > expansion of a single computer to all whom avail themselves to it--a grand > extension of Microsoft DOS, an alpha-numeric internal computer-focused set > of formalities. So-called search engines are sets of rather limited > algorithms only cable of bring back "pages" in which the alpha-numeric > criteria appears in the name or content of "computer" files. This makes > finding information a process in which one may retrieve hundreds of > "pages"--all designed with no universal design criteria which often amount > to a different interface for each site retrieved. It leaves a lot of > "browsing"--none of which may produce a satisfactory result. The are of > course public > forums" and conventionalizing like "Face Book" et al in which people may > post directed messages open to perusal and commentary by other persons. And > there are "blogs" as well--running journals or series of commentary in which > the righter basically pacifies them self by telling them self they've > published something whereas in fact they have filed a document that one may > stumble over or not. > > What real cyberspace is starts with the knowledge that no one has yet > designed cyberspace per se. Cyberspace is analogous to a beehive--no one bee > designs the hive but the result of their collective actions build a > structure that keeps swelling as small groups work on focused tasks. > Cyberspace is a potential rather than an entity. It is based upon the > collective endeavor of the myriad efforts to develop technology though not > specifically and purposefully to achieve a comprehensive phenomenon in which > collective ideals well beyond today's Internet are achievable. An example of > a cyberspace interface as opposed to an Internet browser would be to, say, > use Google Earth s an interface to the world and create separate strata > which are linked to the geography of the planet in which one can turn on and > off the various strata so that commerce is not mixed with something like the > eco-sphere, or socio-sphere et al. In this modality people return to being > deliberate on what specifically they are trying to do and make the computer > a tool of exploration and connection with other entities. The Internet, > conversely, is a device designed in large fashion to do the thinking for the > user and provide the user with a house of cards of information in which the > person learns no navigational technique and, I assume, is left to marvel at > the technological ability to capture information willy-nilly and the peruse > it--establishing no sense of navigation or connection with geography et al. > I believe we are in the dark ages of the Informations Age, and until > cyberspace become a matter of idealistic deign meant to improve the human > who uses it, will will continue to Twitter and while away millions of hours > getting a "NO" whereas with design rather than default of a true cyberspace > beyond the Internet, we will never settle for "NO" and build a progressive > culture that prepares, builds and always expect that query to be answered > "YES". Tis is just a part of how I envision what I call a sustainable > progress engine in which I have inventoried many nuances that would help the > community that uses the real cyberspace break away to a new level of > modernity in which the world would be forced to choose which era it lives > in--the new progress? or the come-see come-sa era of "acceptable NO's". > Respectfully and sincerely, James T. McGuiness > > linda misek-falkoff wrote: > > > Dear Colleagues: > > A while back I posted an announcement when Google's BUZZ started buzzing. > It came supplied in my gmail one day, already stocked with buzz buddies - as > in "six degrees of separation" calculated by automata (computational > "intelligence"). Well it's no secret I've over 50 years in computing and > have seen a lot of social and other including antisocial networking > "CyberSpaceWise." I wondered electronically with one of our colleagues > here, how is this different? One aspect that occurred to me was just simple > set stuff. You start with an empty set or a non-empty set like an instant > community. Or maybe index origin 0 or 1, I'm not an expert on these math > things per se; others here are. > > Have you dabbled? Buzzed (and also perhaps embeddedly as R.P. has, still > tweeted)? Hard to resist jumping in to test "waters" or is it "tides.". > > I'm biased a bit yes, and very concerned with privacy but ... older I get > more interested in potential networking; had my days taking cyberlibel (read > also identity theft through misrepresentation) Cert. Petitions to the > Washington Supremes (said with reverence). Still (the bias) I'm > curious. But yes still "on the third hand" feel a bit moved in on and > concerned. And I imagine many *older and younger and midder* persons > might feel just the opposite; enraged to find they're being followed and can > follow (stalk) by machines (we hope its machines) matchmaking. And if they > try to eliminate or reduce the (can we call it social group?) what other > side-effects might be triggered? > > *e-perish the e-thought*. > > > "AnyOlTechWay", Google's allegedly been sued with a CAass action complaint > (not yet e-surfaced?) from it looks like a lady in silicon valley area, in > the name of many millions of gmail users, > > Request: whoever first sees the actual (said to be Federal) Complaint on > the Net, please post a link? > > For some time it's seemed the *interfaces* of computing with law might > come up here. I've moderated a cyberlibel list for several years, in the > area of tort law mainly, and with this note will scamper over there on this > one to see what folks think. In fact, via this email as it isn't apparent > that will violate privacy ... hope you agree. At least - such is not > "intended." > > Enjoy your weekend! If you are going out there via social networking, > don't talk to strangers; or do. > Best wishes and *Respectfully Interfacing* > LDMF. > > For identification only: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, ageing, health, values, development, Gray Panthers, Committee on Mental Health Media and ITC, Discrimination SubComs. > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > ICT multiple decades - authored and taught original GML tages - became HTML; developed internet law on cyberlibel, reputation management etc. > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about event or continuing leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. P.S. While still in initial development - you are welcome to visit the startup (not yet with alternative text or captioning) *Respectful Interfaces* website - in order to browse, make requests, join in, and send suggestions to respectful.interfaces at gmail.com. To sample *respectful Interfaces* as an enterprise framework, with references to CCC/UN and WEF, click here: http://wp.me/PFqR6-K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Sun Feb 21 08:22:12 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:22:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <0F3599E0-F057-453D-B6B3-B8ECEFA05E0B@st-kilda.org> On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the > Secretary General on this issue? Why are we so worried about the > length of the statement when it is not verbose by any standards and > when there aren't too many statements from Civil Society on this > issue? The IGC is making this statement on behalf of most of its > several CS members, so it is ok if the statement is long enough to > include the facts, arguments and express all our concerns. > > Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so > much unsaid. I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just that the sentences are too long and complex. Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier to comprehend and translate accurately. Regards f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Sun Feb 21 09:06:44 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 10:06:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <0F3599E0-F057-453D-B6B3-B8ECEFA05E0B@st-kilda.org> References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> <0F3599E0-F057-453D-B6B3-B8ECEFA05E0B@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: My point too. If we expect others to respect the diversity of languages used by civil society and generally online, then we need to be seen to be offering that respect ourselves. And I expect we would also like to be clearly understood by everyone, no matter which language they may feel comfortable in. Deirdre On 21 February 2010 09:22, Fearghas McKay wrote: > > On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > > How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary >> General on this issue? Why are we so worried about the length of the >> statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too >> many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this >> statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the >> statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our >> concerns. >> >> Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so much >> unsaid. >> > > I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just that > the sentences are too long and complex. > > Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier to > comprehend and translate accurately. > > > Regards > > f > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 21 10:52:03 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 07:52:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <221516.78943.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> In all aspects of communication respect is a two way street. If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the language be of intelligence and sophistication.   Too often in civil societies we are concerned about the least amoung us and are not likewise concerned of the greatest amoung us. It is of no help to lower standards so that those of lower standards are included. It is far better to set sights on raising the bar for all rather than lowering it to be seen politically correct. --- On Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 2:06 PM My point too. If we expect others to respect the diversity of languages used by civil society and generally online, then we need to be seen to be offering that respect ourselves. And I expect we would also like to be clearly understood by everyone, no matter which language they may feel comfortable in. Deirdre On 21 February 2010 09:22, Fearghas McKay wrote: On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary General on this issue?  Why are we so worried about the length of the statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our concerns. Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so much unsaid. I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just that the sentences are too long and complex. Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier to comprehend and translate accurately. Regards        f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Sun Feb 21 11:01:27 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 16:01:27 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B80C928.8080403@itforchange.net> References: <4B7BDC59.9070307@itforchange.net> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCE5@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CCEB@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> <4B7D21B5.1000907@itforchange.net> <4B7D67EE.7030800@wzb.eu> <4B80C928.8080403@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <4B8158D7.9090306@wzb.eu> Parminder wrote: > > > Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the >> > CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer >> > it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to >> > consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the >> > matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on >> > continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier. >> >> jeanette > We can leave this para out, but I will explain its rationale. The point > was to subtly suggest how an bureaucratic decision I don't think it makes sense to be subtle in such a statement. We should clearly state what we want. I also don't think we need to explain to the UN the implications of their scheduling efforts. I trust the UN bureaucracy is not only well aware of them, it uses such gaming with clear ends in mind. jeanette (a whim, if not a > deliberate effort) of not presenting the report to 2010 session of CSTD > will have the effect of subverting the political (and thus much more > substantive by UN considerations) 'desire' of ECOSOC, which kind of > thing is normally taken with considerable seriousness in the UN or for > that matter in any political establishment. > > Parminder >> >> >>> >>> Some of my comments are inline within Parminder's draft and within >>> Jeremy's draft as quoted. >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Parminder >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> On 18/02/2010, at 8:38 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Maybe I am biased but I prefer the blue version for >>>>> readability, thanks Deirdre. >>>>> >>>>> I offer one more very specific but also tactical amendment - >>>>> >>>>> 2nd to last line, 1st para: change 'will' to 'may' (not be >>>>> reviewed etc...) >>>>> >>>> Here is the "blue version" of Deirdre's with Lee's amendment, >>>> and additional amendments of my own to the ECOSOC paragraphs to try >>>> to address Parminder's email, and I changed "open for review by >>>> (non-governmental) all stakeholders" which didn't seem grammatical >>>> to me. I've also standardised on "multistakeholder" rather than >>>> "multi-stakeholder". Please keep the comments rolling so that we >>>> can finalise this soon. >>>> >>>> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED >>>> NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON >>>> >>>> Dear Sir, >>>> >>>> >>> >>> I still prefer that we start with >>> >>> IGC supports the views expressed by many government delegates at the >>> recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary >>> General's report and recommendations on ' the desirability of the >>> continuation of the Forum ' based on formal consultations at IGF >>> Sharm be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before >>> it is considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. >>> >>> The reference to the "views expressed by many government delegates" >>> is good, but this opening line is too long. As a suggestion, breaking >>> this up into two sentences such as " IGC exphasizes that the UN >>> Secretary General's report on the continuation of IGF be presented to >>> the CSTD in its May sesssion before being presented to the ECOSOC and >>> UN Assembly, as recommended by many Government delegates at the >>> February 2010 Open Consultations." This report by the Secretary >>> General on the 'Desirability and Continuation of the Internet >>> Governance Forum' is based on formal consultations at the IGF 2009 >>> held at Sharm el Sheikh and reflects the wishes of the participants >>> of the forum. " could be more readable. >>> >>> >>> This will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of >>> concerned actors, including governments, with this very important >>> issue. CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS >>> follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement >>> with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best >>> basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC >>> and the UN >>> Assembly. >>> >>> >>> Here we may insert a passage from Jeremy's draft " The Economic and >>> Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) was given >>> responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS outcomes, >>> including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work were >>> delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. For >>> this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the >>> multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion in >>> the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions >>> 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these >>> decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private >>> sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of the >>> CSTD... With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual >>> ECOSOC resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including >>> assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other >>> stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's >>> process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as >>> innovative and successful." >>> >>> As a preamble we can include the two paragraphs from Jeremy's draft >>> "In the Tunis Agenda 2005 .... (Para 7) was the result of this." and >>> " The Economic and Social Council of the ..... participate in the >>> work of the CSTD" which is well researched and gives the appearance >>> of a well drafted diplomatic statement. >>> >>> >>> We further agree with the statements made by some government >>> representatives >>> >>> >>> To make this more effective, we can name the Governments and quote >>> what they said. >>> in the mentioned consultations that there seems to be no logic to >>> short circuit the normal process of consideration of issues >>> concerned with WSIS, going against the practice of the past. >>> >>> It does not clearly convey that the UNDESA representative declared at >>> the IGF consultations that it was "not our intention to submit the >>> report to the CSTD". We may have to say it here. >>> >>> Also, Jeremy's draft expresses our concerns clearly: " to move the >>> debate to ECOSOC means to silence an open and transparent debate >>> among governmental and non-governmental stakeholders. It would mark a >>> return to the pre-WSIS time when civil society (and the private >>> sector) were removed from the room after the ceremonial speeches of >>> the opening sessions ended and the real debate started in June 2002." >>> >>> So, we can think of combining Parminder's draft with Jeremy's draft, >>> for better impact. >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> >>> >>> >>> It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's >>> report on 'enhanced cooperation' which was presented to the ECOSOC >>> has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior >>> consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally >>> prefer CSTD's views on >>> >>> >>> issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no >>> reason why the same should not apply to the SG's report on IGF. >>> >>> However, in the present case, if the report is not presented to the >>> CSTD session this May, it will not be possible for ECOSOC to refer >>> it to CSTD. This is for the reason that ECOSOC will be able to >>> consider this issue only after May, and it is not possible for the >>> matter to be put to CSTD next year since the final decision on >>> continuation of the IGF will have to be made much earlier. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent >>> process, UN Secretary General's report on continuation of the IGF be >>> made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will >>> help the 'UN membership' make an informed and considered decision on >>> this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. >>> >>> After this we can add a short para from the present draft on the >>> relatively greater multistakeholderism of CSTD (but it will not be >>> the key factor in the present context) . >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>>> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus is a strong >>>> supporter of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and its unique >>>> multi-stakeholder process. We express a concern about what we see as >>>> a potential weakening of that process. Our concern is shared by >>>> several governments who spoke to similar effect at the last IGF open >>>> consultation meeting on 10 February. At that open consultation >>>> meeting. it was announced that your recommendations on the >>>> continuation of the IGF may not be reviewed by the Commission on >>>> Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) as has been done in >>>> the past. >>>> >>>> In the Tunis Agenda 2005 the principle of "multistakeholderism" >>>> (Para 35 ... the management of the Internet encompasses both >>>> technical and public policy issues and should involve all >>>> stakeholders) was recognised. This was the biggest conceptual >>>> achievement of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). >>>> Particularly multistakeholderism was accepted as a guiding principle >>>> for Internet Governance. By this, Civil Society was accepted as an >>>> equal partner in their specific role (Para 61). It came as a result >>>> of constructive and substantial work done by the civil society >>>> representatives during WSIS I and II. This was documented in >>>> particular in the WSIS Civil Society Declaration, adopted in Geneva >>>> in December 2003 and handed over officially to the Heads of States >>>> (who accepted it) in the Closing Ceremony of WSIS I. It was also >>>> demonstrated in the contribution to the results of the UN Working >>>> Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The existence of the IGF as a >>>> locus for >> "multi- >>>> stakeholder policy dialogue" (Para 72) was the result of this. >>>> >>>> The Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) >>>> was given responsibility for the general follow-up of the WSIS >>>> outcomes, including the IGF. The actual review and assessment work >>>> were delegated to the CSTD, one of ECOSOC’s functional commissions. >>>> For this purpose it was to be strengthened "taking into account the >>>> multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105). The inclusion >>>> in the CSTD of other stakeholders was formalized in ECOSOC decisions >>>> 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. According to these >>>> decisions, all WSIS-accredited NGOs, academic entities and private >>>> sector representatives were invited to participate in the work of >>>> the CSTD. >>>> >>>> With this structure in place, the CSTD drafted the annual ECOSOC >>>> resolutions on the WSIS follow-up for 2007-2009, including >>>> assessments on the performance of the IGF. By accommodating other >>>> stakeholders in fulfilment of the WSIS principles, the CSTD's >>>> process, like that of the IGF itself, has been widely lauded as >>>> innovative and successful. There is therefore no reason for a >>>> sudden departure from this process on the question of the >>>> continuation of the IGF. >>>> >>>> The CSTD is not a multistakeholder institution, and hence we >>>> would welcome further enhancement of the participation of >>>> non-governmental stakeholders in the IGF review. However even as it >>>> stands, the CSTD does provide relatively greater multistakeholder >>>> involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC. Whilst ECOSOC has >>>> accredited NGOs, their influence is limited and much of their >>>> expertise is not taken into consideration by ECOSOC. More >>>> importantly, there are many NGOs that were accredited at WSIS but >>>> which are not in consultative status with ECOSOC, and the private >>>> sector has no representation within ECOSOC at all. >>>> >>>> Consequently, to move the debate to ECOSOC means to silence an >>>> open and transparent debate among governmental and non-governmental >>>> stakeholders. It would mark a return to the pre-WSIS time when civil >>>> society (and the private sector) were removed from the room after >>>> the ceremonial speeches of the opening sessions ended and the real >>>> debate started in June 2002. It took three years and ten PrepComs to >>>> change this. >>>> >>>> We request you to take steps to redress this anomaly, by >>>> transmitting your recommendations on the continuation of the IGF to >>>> the CSTD for consideration at its May meeting. There, they will be >>>> open for review by all stakeholders, as befits the review of a >>>> unique multistakeholder institution. Should it not be possible to do >>>> this, civil society's confidence in the legitimacy of the resolution >>>> on the continuation of the IGF that is ultimately made by the >>>> General Assembly might well be reduced. >>>> We would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate our >>>> support for the continuation of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder forum >>>> for the discussion of Internet-related public policy issues, located >>>> in Geneva, with an independent budget and a Secretariat under >>>> contract with the United Nations Department of Economic and Social >>>> Affairs (UNDESA). >>>> >>>> Thank you for your consideration. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 21 11:04:03 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:04:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B80E002.9070901@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <833414.12200.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I believe that it would be far more helpful to those interested if we promoted and helped different schools of thought to produce different position papers and presented them as such.  What is going on here in the drafts is a forced conformity. It is stifling good and honest analysis of issues. In civil society when we all must concede in order to consense then we are not supporting new thinking that should be the mark of invention and improvement.  There is much to be said when we say "we all agree on these ideas" but there is so much more to be said when we say "Here is a new and brilliant idea that we have found".  If this governance society is to really be helpful to leaders and governors it will not be in telling them that which they already know, but by finding and cultivating the brilliant minds within our midst that will come up with solutions that heretofor no one knows. --- On Sun, 2/21/10, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing To: "Bertrand de La Chapelle" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" , "Jeanette Hofmann" , "Deirdre Williams" Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 7:25 AM Jeanette and Bertrand, First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this procedural part. However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my 'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement  friendly and  not developed countries? Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls  within their own territories. Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of IGF, with no consideration to the fact that 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to which it does so. 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make recommendations where necessary. I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email. >para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or >No question. Section 74 of TA reads #yiv839668667 _filtered #yiv839668667 {margin:2cm;} #yiv839668667 P {margin-bottom:0.21cm;} #yiv839668667 "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum ..........' and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review". Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into the oblivion. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, Parminder wrote :  In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD.  The reasoning is as follows :  - the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG)  - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature.  The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF.  Best Bertrand  -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 21 11:16:42 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:16:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Re: [cccun] *op ed query*: Do reactions to privacy and identityissues vary with age? New lawsuit from West Coast netizens v. the big G.?. In-Reply-To: <45ed74051002210458k20b4b600q7dd82b73ea6e6e1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <820618.93245.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Linda and James,   We are quick in our minds to give definition and to classify. It helps us in basic cognitive thought.  But sometimes words have an "aura" within themselves. Cyber is just such a combination of letters. Some words conjur. Usually it takes a string of words. So a word/suffix/prefix/adjective/noun... Like Cyber is very special. Usually the meaning of the word gives understanding --- perhaps sometimes words give imagination. If we put too fine a point of definition on such a word perhaps it is like caging the Phoenix.   Clearly I give too much respect to words,,,, but then again, by using them I can bring peace or war or tears or laughter and best of all love. --- On Sun, 2/21/10, linda misek-falkoff wrote: From: linda misek-falkoff Subject: [governance] Re: [cccun] *op ed query*: Do reactions to privacy and identityissues vary with age? New lawsuit from West Coast netizens v. the big G.?. To: "James T. Mc Guiness" Cc: cccun at yahoogroups.com, jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com, judylear at aol.com, respectful.interfaces at gmail.com, ldmisekfalkoff.2 at gmail.com, lehto.paul at gmail.com, cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net, governance at lists.cpsr.org, adfalkoff at gmail.com Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 12:58 PM ----- respectful  interfaces e-note  022010 - cyberspace - ----- Please note the link flush left on the next line for one sort of reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybernetics Dear James, Thank you, your post is terrific and I would like to share it with others. And we've met now.  Well met! You so appropriately raise many challenging and frontal issues and I say this not to flatter but with some genuine appreciation - though the lore is that flattery rarely fails in full. I am going to take some time before responding  to your individual posits and I think others will also be intrigued. I respond here, of course welcoming feedback,  only re the linguistic or psycholinguistic (themselves perhaps historically fleeting)  terms that start with "cyber."  Except for one of the U.N. Security "canines" at N.Y. Headquarters that bears this name and thus maybe sort of an absolute in this time/space slice, is it not the case that since at least Norbert Weiner's '48 "cybernetics"  re. control and systems theory  (we can check this) the term  has attached itself to electronic communications in descriptive not necessarily prescriptive fashion (?) - as many terms do,operationally, as tools (some say tools of thoughts).  Excellent if it can expand beyond the narrow bandwidth of the Web or the Internet -  and not indeed  shrink down to a hardened set of frozen, non-evolving  verbal  cliches. So, accord on many of your challenging points. Thanks ever so much for your post - and your presence., itself supporting an  enlarging evolution of concepts and facts. With sincere regards, and *respectfully interfacing*, Linda M F. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 2:13 AM, James T. Mc Guiness wrote: Dear Dr. Misek-Falkoff, I don't believe we've met as I was active in the CCC as their newsletter editor back in the 90's and, though I've paid my dues to revive my interest, I've moved to Virginia and am not likely to be showing up at any general meetings any time soon . I felt compelled to comment (even if I'm far afield of the intent), I have made cyberspace and cyber culture theoretics my passion for almost two decades and just hearing or reading expression of issues "cyber", jump-starts my interest.  In my view, the phenomenon we see spun around the press as "cyberspace" and it's offshoots such as "cyber-libel" is little more than sensationalist "buzzwordism" as cyberspace is still an unrealized potential far beyond what the Internet amounts to. Forgive my forwardness and please don't take this as a personal criticism as it seems your writing is a reaction to floating misnomers and not a personal assertions of their validity. If it's OK with you I just like to share insights and vision to voice my perspective on the subject. Firstly, there is no such thing as cyberspace. I wish there were but there isn't. I hope to be part of creating the real thing. The Internet can not live up to the phenomenon called cyberspace. The Internet is an expansion of a single computer to all whom avail themselves to it--a grand extension of Microsoft DOS, an alpha-numeric internal computer-focused set of formalities. So-called search engines are sets of rather limited algorithms only cable of bring back "pages" in which the alpha-numeric criteria appears in the name or content of "computer" files. This makes finding information a process in which one may retrieve hundreds of "pages"--all designed with no universal design criteria which often amount to a different interface for each site retrieved. It leaves a lot of "browsing"--none of which may produce a satisfactory result. The are of course public forums" and conventionalizing like "Face Book" et al in which people may post directed messages open to perusal and commentary by other persons. And there are "blogs" as well--running journals or series of commentary in which the righter basically pacifies them self by telling them self they've published something whereas in fact they have filed a document that one may stumble over or not. What real cyberspace is starts with the knowledge that no one has yet designed cyberspace per se. Cyberspace is analogous to a beehive--no one bee designs the hive but the result of their collective actions build a structure that keeps swelling as small groups work on focused tasks. Cyberspace is a potential rather than an entity. It is based upon the collective endeavor of the myriad efforts to develop technology though not specifically and purposefully to achieve a comprehensive phenomenon in which collective ideals well beyond today's Internet are achievable. An example of a cyberspace interface as opposed to an Internet browser would be to, say, use Google Earth s an interface to the world and create separate strata which are linked to the geography of the planet in which one can turn on and off the various strata so that commerce is not mixed with something like the eco-sphere, or socio-sphere et al. In this modality people return to being deliberate on what specifically they are trying to do and make the computer a tool of exploration and connection with other entities. The Internet, conversely, is a device designed in large fashion to do the thinking for the user and provide the user with a house of cards of information in which the person learns no navigational technique and, I assume, is left to marvel at the technological ability to capture information willy-nilly and the peruse it--establishing no sense of navigation or connection with geography et al. I believe we are in the dark ages of the Informations Age, and until cyberspace become a matter of idealistic deign meant to improve the human who uses it, will will continue to Twitter and while away millions of hours getting a "NO" whereas with design rather than default of a true cyberspace beyond the Internet, we will never settle for "NO" and build a progressive culture that prepares, builds and always expect that query to be answered "YES". Tis is just a part of how I envision what I call a sustainable progress engine in which I have inventoried many nuances that would help the community that uses the real cyberspace break away to a new level of modernity in which the world would be forced to choose which era it lives in--the new progress? or the come-see come-sa era of "acceptable NO's".  Respectfully and sincerely, James T. McGuiness  linda misek-falkoff wrote:   Dear Colleagues:   A while back I posted an announcement when Google's BUZZ started buzzing.  It came supplied in my gmail one day, already stocked with buzz buddies - as in "six degrees of separation" calculated by automata (computational "intelligence").  Well it's no secret I've over 50 years in computing and have seen a lot of social and other including antisocial networking "CyberSpaceWise."  I wondered electronically with one of our colleagues here, how is this different? One aspect that occurred to me was just simple set stuff. You start with an empty set or a non-empty set like an  instant community.  Or maybe index origin 0 or 1, I'm not an expert on these math things per se; others here are.   Have you dabbled? Buzzed (and also perhaps embeddedly as R.P. has, still tweeted)? Hard to resist jumping in to test "waters" or is it "tides.".   I'm biased a bit yes, and very concerned with privacy but ... older I get more interested in potential networking; had my days taking cyberlibel (read also identity theft through misrepresentation) Cert. Petitions to the Washington Supremes (said with reverence). Still (the bias)  I'm curious. But yes still "on the third hand" feel a bit moved in on and concerned.  And I imagine many older and younger and midder persons might feel just the opposite; enraged to find they're being followed and can follow (stalk) by machines (we hope its machines) matchmaking. And if they try to eliminate or reduce the (can we call it  social group?) what other side-effects might be triggered?   e-perish the e-thought.     "AnyOlTechWay", Google's allegedly been sued with a CAass action complaint (not yet e-surfaced?) from it looks like a lady in silicon valley area, in the name of many millions of gmail users,    Request: whoever first sees the actual (said to be Federal) Complaint on the Net, please post a link?   For some time it's seemed the interfaces of computing with law might come up here. I've moderated a cyberlibel list for several years, in the area of tort law mainly, and with this note will scamper over there on this one to see what folks think.  In fact, via this email as it isn't apparent that will violate privacy ... hope you agree. At least - such is not "intended."   Enjoy your weekend!  If you are going out there via social networking, don't talk to strangers; or do. Best wishes and *Respectfully Interfacing* LDMF. For identification only: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, ageing, health, values, development, Gray Panthers, Committee on Mental Health Media and ITC, Discrimination SubComs. > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > ICT multiple decades - authored and taught original GML tages - became HTML; developed internet law on cyberlibel, reputation management etc. > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > -  You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about event or continuing leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. P.S. While still in initial development -  you are welcome to visit the startup (not yet with alternative text or captioning) *Respectful Interfaces* website  - in order to browse, make requests, join in, and send suggestions to  respectful.interfaces at gmail.com.  To sample *respectful Interfaces* as an enterprise framework, with references to CCC/UN and WEF, click here: http://wp.me/PFqR6-K -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From meryem at marzouki.info Sun Feb 21 11:38:21 2010 From: meryem at marzouki.info (Meryem Marzouki) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 17:38:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] CFP - 3rd GigaNet Workshop in Montreal, 30&31 May 2010 - "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction" Message-ID: [This CFP might be of interest to some of you. Apologies for multiple reception] Dear Colleagues, GigaNet (The Global Internet Governance Academic Network - http:// giga-net.org) is pleased to announce its Third International Workshop on "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction", to be held in Montreal (Quebec), Canada, on 30 and 31 May 2010. This workshop is organized in cooperation with the Canadian Communication Association and Media at McGill. Please find hereafter and attached the workshop preliminary announcement and call for contributions, as well as the workshop poster. Feel free to widely distribute. We look forward to welcoming you in Montreal! Best regards, Meryem Marzouki, on behalf of the Workshop Program and Organizing Committees -- Meryem Marzouki LIP6/PolyTIC - CNRS 104 avenue du Président Kennedy - 75016 Paris http://www-polytic.lip6.fr :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Third International Workshop on Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction Montreal (QC), Canada - 30-31 May 2010 Organized by GigaNet, in cooperation with The Canadian Communication Association and Media at McGill Co-sponsored by GigaNet, ACC-CCA, Media at McGill, LIP6/CNRS and UPMC Preliminary Announcement and Call for Contributions The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) invites you to participate in its third scholarly workshop to be held in Montreal (QC), Canada, on 30-31 May 2010. This workshop is organized in cooperation with the Canadian Communication Association and Media at McGill, during the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS) 2010 Congress week in Montreal. Building on the success of its first two editions, respectively in Paris, France in June 2008 and in Brussels, Belgium in May 2009, the purpose of this third GigaNet workshop is twofold: The first day will be dedicated to outreach sessions aimed at increasing the interest in the Global Internet Governance field among both various academic disciplines and the civil society at large, including but not limited to NGOs and civil society groups active in related fields. These outreach sessions will include academic tutorials on Global Internet Governance as well as information and discussion led by experts in the field on current Global Internet Governance debates and their relevance to public policy making. Detailed information on the outreach sessions' program will be distributed closer to the event itself. The second day will feature thematic presentations selected upon submissions made in response to this call for contributions. We invite scholars to present and discuss their work- in-progress in Internet Governance-related research, with the aim to identify emerging research themes and design a research agenda. Rather than featuring academic paper presentations, the workshop aims at providing a survey of current academic activities in the field, in order to share ideas and forge possible collaborations. Submissions are expected to focus on presenting problematics, research designs, preliminary empirical results and conclusions in the aim of stimulating reflection and discussion amongst the audience. Submissions may address, but are not limited to, the following topics: involved actors and their interactions; Internet governance institutions and regimes; legal, socio-economical, behavioral and technical regulation means; Internet governance policy issues. Submissions in view of thematic presentations should be sent by 20 March 2010 to Meryem Marzouki (Meryem.Marzouki at lip6.fr). They should be written in English and include the name, affiliation, e-mail address and short bio of author(s), along with no more than 500 words of research work description. The program committee will notify applicants by 20 April 2010. To encourage knowledge dissemination, relevant submissions will be published on the workshop website. Authors of selected submissions will be invited to present their work in the workshop thematic sessions. Program Committee: Laura DeNardis, Yale U., USA; Meryem Marzouki, CNRS & U. Pierre et Marie Curie, France; Milton Mueller, Syracuse U., USA & Delft Technical U., The Netherlands; Claudia Padovani, Padova U., Italy & McGill U., Canada; Jeremy Shtern, Ryerson U., Canada. Local Organizing Committee: Juliana Dalley, McGill U., Canada; Becky Lentz, McGill U., Canada; Daniel Paré, U. of Ottawa, Canada; Claire Roberge, McGill U., Canada. There is no registration fee for this event. A registration form will be circulated with the program. Workshop website: http://giga-net.org/page/2010-international-workshop GigaNet: giga-net.org - ACC-CCA: www.acc-cca.ca - Media at McGill: media.mcgill.ca To receive further workshop updates, and other GigaNet news, please subscribe to the information dissemination mailing list: info-giganet (http://www-rp.lip6.fr/wws/info/info-giganet) ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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: GigaNetMontreal2010-CFP.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 55070 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Montreal2010-PosterLowDef.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 343969 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Sun Feb 21 12:01:31 2010 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:01:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Re: [cccun] *op ed query*: Do reactions to privacy In-Reply-To: <820618.93245.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <45ed74051002210458k20b4b600q7dd82b73ea6e6e1d@mail.gmail.com> <820618.93245.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74051002210901q6c3cf49fhf444bb0b7e7209a9@mail.gmail.com> How could word usage be more beautiful or productive, on any model. Thank you Eric for the colloquy, and ever *Respectfully Interfacing*, Linda M F. On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Linda and James, > > We are quick in our minds to give definition and to classify. It helps us > in basic cognitive thought. But sometimes words have an "aura" within > themselves. Cyber is just such a combination of letters. Some words conjur. > Usually it takes a string of words. So a > word/suffix/prefix/adjective/noun... Like Cyber is very special. Usually the > meaning of the word gives understanding --- perhaps sometimes words give > imagination. If we put too fine a point of definition on such a word perhaps > it is like caging the Phoenix. > > Clearly I give too much respect to words,,,, but then again, by using them > I can bring peace or war or tears or laughter and best of all love. > > > --- On *Sun, 2/21/10, linda misek-falkoff *wrote: > ... [please see prior, fuller posts for context, and for storage reasons, cold as that word may seem!] LDMF. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Sun Feb 21 12:28:41 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 13:28:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <221516.78943.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <221516.78943.qm@web83913.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: We need to agree to differ. I cannot accept an argument that measures greatest and least on the basis of whether people speak English or not. And I believe in communication courtesy – an obligation on the speaker to make his/her point as clearly as possible concomitant with an obligation on the listener to make the effort necessary to understand. On 21 February 2010 11:52, Eric Dierker wrote: > In all aspects of communication respect is a two way street. If the > document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of > high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the > language be of intelligence and sophistication. > > Too often in civil societies we are concerned about the least amoung us and > are not likewise concerned of the greatest amoung us. It is of no help to > lower standards so that those of lower standards are included. It is far > better to set sights on raising the bar for all rather than lowering it to > be seen politically correct. > > --- On *Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams *wrote: > > > From: Deirdre Williams > > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > CSTD > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" > Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 2:06 PM > > > My point too. If we expect others to respect the diversity of languages > used by civil society and generally online, then we need to be seen to be > offering that respect ourselves. > And I expect we would also like to be clearly understood by everyone, no > matter which language they may feel comfortable in. > Deirdre > > On 21 February 2010 09:22, Fearghas McKay > > wrote: > >> >> On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >> >> How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary >>> General on this issue? Why are we so worried about the length of the >>> statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too >>> many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this >>> statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the >>> statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our >>> concerns. >>> >>> Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so much >>> unsaid. >>> >> >> I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just >> that the sentences are too long and complex. >> >> Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier to >> comprehend and translate accurately. >> >> >> Regards >> >> f >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sun Feb 21 15:29:46 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 12:29:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <340594.18275.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think we agree on this. I think we can both agree that writing in a style most easily undersood by all is optimum. Where we differ here, and not so much, is that when speaking to somebody we make sure that all listeners are easily accomodated.  That probably is not such a good idea. If the paper be for all to learn from,,, then write it one way. But if the paper be written so that a leader is pursuaded or influenced then write it for that reader/leader and that purpose.   If we are attempting to garner broad support for our position your technique and considerations would be at forefront.  In that our stated purpose is more focused on the Sec Gen then perhaps my thoughts should overshadow inclusiveness.  If it be your scenario then we are "grandstanding" and "playing for the crowds". I think better we do not say one thing and act another. --- On Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 5:28 PM We need to agree to differ. I cannot accept an argument that measures greatest and least on the basis of whether people speak English or not. And I believe in communication courtesy – an obligation on the speaker to make his/her point as clearly as possible concomitant with an obligation on the listener to make the effort necessary to understand.  On 21 February 2010 11:52, Eric Dierker wrote: In all aspects of communication respect is a two way street. If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the language be of intelligence and sophistication.   Too often in civil societies we are concerned about the least amoung us and are not likewise concerned of the greatest amoung us. It is of no help to lower standards so that those of lower standards are included. It is far better to set sights on raising the bar for all rather than lowering it to be seen politically correct. --- On Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 2:06 PM My point too. If we expect others to respect the diversity of languages used by civil society and generally online, then we need to be seen to be offering that respect ourselves. And I expect we would also like to be clearly understood by everyone, no matter which language they may feel comfortable in. Deirdre On 21 February 2010 09:22, Fearghas McKay wrote: On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary General on this issue?  Why are we so worried about the length of the statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our concerns. Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so much unsaid. I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just that the sentences are too long and complex. Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier to comprehend and translate accurately. Regards        f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fm-lists at st-kilda.org Sun Feb 21 16:40:12 2010 From: fm-lists at st-kilda.org (Fearghas McKay) Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:40:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <340594.18275.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <340594.18275.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <46A9D8A0-4370-4ADD-AB7E-1F1C5154FD65@st-kilda.org> On 21 Feb 2010, at 20:29, Eric Dierker wrote: > If we are attempting to garner broad support for our position your > technique and considerations would be at forefront. In that our > stated purpose is more focused on the Sec Gen then perhaps my > thoughts should overshadow inclusiveness. If it be your scenario > then we are "grandstanding" and "playing for the crowds". I think > better we do not say one thing and act another. Regardless of who we address the letter to, it is important that it can be understood by our global community. That means writing it in such a way that it can be easily translated. It is not grandstanding, it is representing our communities in a clear and coherent manner. f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Mon Feb 22 04:50:42 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 01:50:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <46A9D8A0-4370-4ADD-AB7E-1F1C5154FD65@st-kilda.org> References: <340594.18275.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <46A9D8A0-4370-4ADD-AB7E-1F1C5154FD65@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <999726.34941.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear IGC Members,   I also suggest to incorporate the followings into the letter to UN SG: 1.    The overall Theme and Agenda of the development of IGF:         which may as:                 The overall theme of the meeting will be "Internet Governance for Development".         The agenda will be structured along the following broad themes.             •Openness - Freedom of expression, free flow of information, ideas and knowledge             •Security - Creating trust and confidence through collaboration             •Diversity - Promoting multilingualism and local content             •Access - Internet Connectivity: Policy and Cost              Capacity-building will be a cross-cutting priority.         (message from Kofi A. Annan) 2.    The achievements of last 5 years by IGF and contribution of IGC 3.    Final Recommendations to disclose to the public by UNGS in his Report (May10).   These point will also help UNGS to incorporate into the final report for annual session May 2010 that IGF formation helped in this and this way and IGC contributions are this and this. And finally the mandate for the next 5 years are this and this and UN seek support from Governments and Civil Societies to support.   Regards   Imran Ahmed Shah ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Feb 22 05:00:09 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:00:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <46A9D8A0-4370-4ADD-AB7E-1F1C5154FD65@st-kilda.org> References: <340594.18275.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <46A9D8A0-4370-4ADD-AB7E-1F1C5154FD65@st-kilda.org> Message-ID: <980160.66283.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear IGC Mebers, just to conclude this discussion, I propose the title address and body sequence as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS (IGC)   Open Letter to H.E. BAN KI-MOON, SECRETARY GENERAL THE UNITED NATIONS,   To:       Secretary General His Excellency Ban Ki-moon SECRETARY GENERAL THE UNITED NATIONS,   Headquarters: 1st ave. and 46th street New York, NY 10017-3515 USA Fax: 1 (212) 963 4879 http://www.un.org   Your Excellency,   Para 1 .... IGF mandate 2005 Para 2..... IGF Achievements of last 5-years ... ... Closing Para ... Recommendations to UNSG Finally IGC seek your support for ..............   Thanking you and Best Regards   Sincerely,       Coordinator THE CIVIL SOCIETY INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS (IGC)   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   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I request to Coordinators, if the letter draft is revised according to this and previous email and submitted it again, the reviews will be very useful for IGC. Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Fearghas McKay To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Sent: Mon, 22 February, 2010 2:40:12 Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD On 21 Feb 2010, at 20:29, Eric Dierker wrote: > If we are attempting to garner broad support for our position your technique and considerations would be at forefront.  In that our stated purpose is more focused on the Sec Gen then perhaps my thoughts should overshadow inclusiveness.  If it be your scenario then we are "grandstanding" and "playing for the crowds". I think better we do not say one thing and act another. Regardless of who we address the letter to, it is important that it can be understood by our global community. That means writing it in such a way that it can be easily translated. It is not grandstanding, it is representing our communities in a clear and coherent manner.     f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Mon Feb 22 05:19:37 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:19:37 +0800 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <999726.34941.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <340594.18275.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <46A9D8A0-4370-4ADD-AB7E-1F1C5154FD65@st-kilda.org> <999726.34941.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 22/02/2010, at 5:50 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > I also suggest to incorporate the followings into the letter to UN SG: > 1. The overall Theme and Agenda of the development of IGF: > 2. The achievements of last 5 years by IGF and contribution of IGC > 3. Final Recommendations to disclose to the public by UNGS in his Report (May10). Thanks for your input, but I reluctant to add the two extra sections 1 and 2 to our short letter. I think your number 1 is rather too low-level for the UNSG to be concerned with, as this is a matter for which responsibility has been delegated to the IGF Secretariat. As to number 2, the UNSG will already have been well briefed on the achievements of the IGF in order to make recommendations on its continuation, so I am not convinced that this is the right occasion to rehash that history. If anyone else agrees with you though, I am open to persuasion. I will post the next revision tomorrow, workload permitting. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Feb 22 06:51:53 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:21:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <340594.18275.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <340594.18275.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Erid Dierker On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: > I think we agree on this. I think we can both agree that writing in a style > most easily undersood by all is optimum. Where we differ here, and not so > much, is that when speaking to somebody we make sure that all listeners are > easily accomodated. That probably is not such a good idea. If the paper be > for all to learn from,,, then write it one way. But if the paper be written > so that a leader is pursuaded or influenced then write it for that > reader/leader and that purpose. > > If we are attempting to garner broad support for our position your > technique and considerations would be at forefront. In that our stated > purpose is more focused on the Sec Gen then perhaps my thoughts should > overshadow inclusiveness. If it be your scenario then we are > "grandstanding" and "playing for the crowds". > I am a bit puzzled about what you said earlier, "If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the language be of intelligence and sophistication" I don't agree that proper respect requires a language of "sophistication" (sophistication in the sense that the language is complex, incomprehensible to most of the CS participants). The language can be respectful while being simple. It would be a stereotype to assume that polite and formal communication ought to be 'sophisticated', (constructed in long sentences of relatively unintelligible words?). It can very much be a communication in short sentences and plain simple words and still radiate respect. Another perceived problem is that of the difficulty for those who don't speak English. Since it is a very important document from IGC, we can internally translate this one page document in a few other languages within a week after sending this document in English and make it available on the list for reference as also send it the to the UN to be included along with the document in English in their records. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > I think better we do not say one thing and act another. > > > --- On *Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams *wrote: > > > From: Deirdre Williams > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > CSTD > To: "Eric Dierker" > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" > Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 5:28 PM > > > We need to agree to differ. > > I cannot accept an argument that measures greatest and least on the basis > of whether people speak English or not. And I believe in communication > courtesy – an obligation on the speaker to make his/her point as clearly as > possible concomitant with an obligation on the listener to make the effort > necessary to understand. > On 21 February 2010 11:52, Eric Dierker > > wrote: > >> In all aspects of communication respect is a two way street. If the >> document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of >> high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the >> language be of intelligence and sophistication. >> >> Too often in civil societies we are concerned about the least amoung us >> and are not likewise concerned of the greatest amoung us. It is of no help >> to lower standards so that those of lower standards are included. It is far >> better to set sights on raising the bar for all rather than lowering it to >> be seen politically correct. >> >> --- On *Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams >> >* wrote: >> >> >> From: Deirdre Williams > >> >> >> Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >> CSTD >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, >> "Fearghas McKay" >> > >> Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 2:06 PM >> >> >> My point too. If we expect others to respect the diversity of languages >> used by civil society and generally online, then we need to be seen to be >> offering that respect ourselves. >> And I expect we would also like to be clearly understood by everyone, no >> matter which language they may feel comfortable in. >> Deirdre >> >> On 21 February 2010 09:22, Fearghas McKay >> > wrote: >> >>> >>> On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>> >>> How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary >>>> General on this issue? Why are we so worried about the length of the >>>> statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too >>>> many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this >>>> statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the >>>> statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our >>>> concerns. >>>> >>>> Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so much >>>> unsaid. >>>> >>> >>> I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just >>> that the sentences are too long and complex. >>> >>> Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier to >>> comprehend and translate accurately. >>> >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> f >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >> >> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William > Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Feb 22 08:14:56 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:14:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <6559CB5F-8243-4725-B9C2-9B53C54C8A4C@Malcolm.id.au> References: <340594.18275.qm@web83909.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> <46A9D8A0-4370-4ADD-AB7E-1F1C5154FD65@st-kilda.org> <999726.34941.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <6559CB5F-8243-4725-B9C2-9B53C54C8A4C@Malcolm.id.au> Message-ID: <736641.63342.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thank you Jeremy Malcolm on prompt reply, (I just wanted to provide him a well prepared documents (fully coocked), so, they could incorporate into their final report as a public statement.) If you do not agree to incorporate point 1 & 2 as UNSG is well-aware with the delegated responsibilities and is briefed with the motive and achivements, I have no objection. However, need to understand that what is missing?   I also need to understand that meaning of "on bypassing CSTD" Thanks/Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ________________________________ From: Jeremy Malcolm To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Imran Ahmed Shah Sent: Mon, 22 February, 2010 15:17:10 Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD On 22/02/2010, at 5:50 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: I also suggest to incorporate the followings into the letter to UN SG: >1.    The overall Theme and Agenda of the development of IGF: >2.    The achievements of last 5 years by IGF and contribution of IGC >3.    Final Recommendations to disclose to the public by UNGS in his Report (May10). Thanks for your input, but I reluctant to add the two extra sections 1 and 2 to our short letter.  I think your number 1 is rather too low-level for the UNSG to be concerned with, as this is a matter for which responsibility has been delegated to the IGF Secretariat.  As to number 2, the UNSG will already have been well briefed on the achievements of the IGF in order to make recommendations on its continuation, so I am not convinced that this is the right occasion to rehash that history. If anyone else agrees with you though, I am open to persuasion. I will post the next revision tomorrow, workload permitting. --  Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 1.0.8.0.3.1.2.9.8.1.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gadi at anime.org Mon Feb 22 10:15:18 2010 From: gadi at anime.org (Gadi Evron) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:15:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee Message-ID: <12DC1BCE-942E-4662-9126-9FC2C5806B50@anime.org> Hello folks, I hope this message is not considered off-topic, if it is please let me know. The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of the Israeli parliament. While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use of their ISP's email service. According to this proposed bill, when a client transfers to a different ISP the email address will optionally be his to take along, "just like" mobile providers do today with phone numbers. This new legislation makes little technological sense, and will certainly be a mess to handle operationally as well as beurocratically, but it certainly is interesting, and at least the notion is beautiful. The proposed bill can be found here [Doc, Hebrew]: http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/computers/22022010/mail.doc Linked to from this ynet (leading Israeli news site) story, here: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3852744,00.html Gadi. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Feb 22 10:33:41 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:33:41 +0300 Subject: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee In-Reply-To: <12DC1BCE-942E-4662-9126-9FC2C5806B50@anime.org> References: <12DC1BCE-942E-4662-9126-9FC2C5806B50@anime.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Gadi Evron wrote: > Hello folks, I hope this message is not considered off-topic, if it is > please let me know. I think it is as much on topic as most posts! > > The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's committee > for legislation, sending it on its way for the full legislation process of > the Israeli parliament. > > While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make use of > their ISP's email service. > > According to this proposed bill, when a client transfers to a different ISP > the email address will optionally be his to take along, "just like" mobile > providers do today with phone numbers. WOW > > This new legislation makes little technological sense, and will certainly be > a mess to handle Indeed, a real mess. operationally as well as beurocratically, but it certainly > is interesting, and at least the notion is beautiful. as well as counter to the way email works. Is it my imagination, or will Provider A (who has lost a customer) be forever required to do work on behalf of Provider B, who has gained a customer? -- 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 voxinternet at gmail.com Mon Feb 22 11:06:48 2010 From: voxinternet at gmail.com (Programme de recherche Vox Internet) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:06:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?26_et_27_mars_2010,_Colloque_Vox_I?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?nternet_II_:_De_la_gouvernance_=E0_la_dynamique_du_=AB_c?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?ommun_=BB_de_l=92Internet_:_questions_autour_du_=AB_droi?= =?WINDOWS-1252?Q?t_d=92entr=E9e_=BB?= Message-ID: > > > >> Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme > École Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines > Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation-École des Mines de Paris > > > *Colloque Vox Internet II : De la gouvernance à la dynamique du « commun » > de l’Internet : questions autour du « droit d’entrée »* > > > 26 et 27 mars 2010 - Ecole des Mines de Paris – 60 bd Saint-Michel - Salle Vendôme > Bonjour, > > Le programme de recherche ANR *Vox Internet II* vous invite au colloque > intitulé *De la > gouvernance à la dynamique du « commun » de l’Internet : questions autour du > « droit d’entrée* ». English version available here > . > > Les communications seront en français, sauf deux qui seront présentées en > anglais. > > Vous trouverez en pièce jointe le texte de présentation générale du > colloque suivi de l’introduction aux différentes sessions. > > *Horaire* : Vendredi 27 mars : 9h-18h - Samedi 28 mars : 9h-13h00 > > *Adresse* : Salle Vendôme, Ecole des Mines, 60 boulevard Saint-Michel > 75272 Paris Cedex 06 > > > > *Accès libre dans la limite des places disponibles - Inscription > obligatoire* : contact at voxinternet.org > > > > *Programme* > > > > *Vendredi 26 mars* : accueil à partir de 9h > > > > *9h30/10h* Introduction générale : FRANÇOISE MASSIT-FOLLEA (Responsable > scientifique du programme) > > > > *10h/12h30 - Session « Littératie »* - Présidence : PAUL MATHIAS > (Inspecteur général de philosophie) > > * *DOMINIQUE BOULLIER (Fondation nationale des Sciences politiques, > Paris) : > > Les dispositifs de contribution comparés selon les architectures de réseaux > sociaux. > > DANIEL PRADO (Direction Multilinguisme et Cyberespace, Union latine, > Paris) : Outils et enjeux d’un Internet multilingue. > > DIVINA FRAU-MEIGS (Université Paris III) : > Education aux médias électroniques et droits humains : une approche > publique, ouverte, participative et éthique. > > *14h30/18h00 – Session « Savoirs ouverts »* - Présidence : DANIELE > BOURCIER (CERSA, CNRS-Université Paris II) > > JOS DE MUL (Université Erasme, Rotterdam) : > The governance of biomics : commercial vs open source biology > DOMINIQUE CARDON (Laboratoire France Telecom) : > Comment l’encyclopédie en ligne Wikipédia est-elle « gouvernée » ? > CECILE MEADEL (CSI, Ecole des Mines, Paris) : > Construction et validation des connaissances dans les échanges > électroniques sur des questions médicales. > HERVE LE CROSNIER (Université de Caen) : > Construire les biens communs de la connaissance. > > > Samedi 27 mars > > *9h/11h30 – Session « Accès physiques »* - Présidence : PHILIPPE BARBET > (Université Paris XIII) > RAPHAËL SUIRE (Université de Rennes 1 / CREM-CNRS / MARSOUIN) : > L’action publique au regard de la mesure des fractures numériques. > OLIVIER SYLVAIN (Fordham Law School, New-York) : > Internet Policy and Democratic Legitimacy : Broadband Regulation in the > USA. > ANNIE CHENEAU-LOQUAY (CNRS-IEP Bordeaux) : > Accès universel et économie informelle : le déploiement de l’Internet en > Afrique. > > > *11h45* > Allocution de MIREILLE DELMAS-MARTY, professeure au Collège de France, > Chaire Etudes juridiques comparatives et Internationalisation du droit. Pour toute information complémentaire, rendez-vous sur le site: >> www.voxinternet.org >> >> Ou écrire à contact at voxinternet.org >> >> Notre Adresse : Maison des Sciences de l'Homme >> >> Vox Internet - Bureau 04 >> 54 boulevard Raspail >> 75006 Paris >> France >> >> Notre Tel : +33-1-49-54-21-93 >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Présentation colloque Vox Internet.doc Type: application/msword Size: 40448 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Vox Internet II Colloquium General Presentation.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41472 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Mon Feb 22 11:34:55 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:34:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD Message-ID: <243801.79666.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> With reference to "the next revision", Please also add one line of Subject, with the open letter to UNGS. Thanks Imran On Mon Feb 22nd, 2010 3:19 PM PKT Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >On 22/02/2010, at 5:50 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: > >> I also suggest to incorporate the followings into the letter to UN SG: >> 1. The overall Theme and Agenda of the development of IGF: >> 2. The achievements of last 5 years by IGF and contribution of IGC >> 3. Final Recommendations to disclose to the public by UNGS in his Report (May10). > > >Thanks for your input, but I reluctant to add the two extra sections 1 and 2 to our short letter. I think your number 1 is rather too low-level for the UNSG to be concerned with, as this is a matter for which responsibility has been delegated to the IGF Secretariat. As to number 2, the UNSG will already have been well briefed on the achievements of the IGF in order to make recommendations on its continuation, so I am not convinced that this is the right occasion to rehash that history. > >If anyone else agrees with you though, I am open to persuasion. > >I will post the next revision tomorrow, workload permitting. > >-- >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 divina.meigs at orange.fr Mon Feb 22 13:06:12 2010 From: divina.meigs at orange.fr (Divina MEIGS) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:06:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] 26 et 27 mars 2010, Colloque Vox Internet II : De la In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Merci Françoise Pour moi, tu peux rajouter que je suis directrice du master ³ingénierie du e-learning² et responsable de la section ³recherche en éducation aux médias² de l¹AIERI/IAMCR.. Je trouve que j¹ai l¹air un peu ³pauvre², par rapport à l¹aéropage que tu as su réunir!! Amitiés Divina Le 22/02/10 17:06, « Programme de recherche Vox Internet » a écrit : >>   >> Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme >> École Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences Humaines >> Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation-École des Mines de Paris >> >> >> Colloque Vox Internet II : De la gouvernance à la dynamique du « commun » de >> l¹Internet : questions autour du « droit d¹entrée » >> >> 26 et 27 mars 2010 - Ecole des Mines de Paris ­ 60 bd Saint-Michel - Salle >> Vendôme >>   >>> Bonjour, >>   >>> Le programme de recherche ANR Vox Internet II vous invite au colloque >>> intitulé De la >>> gouvernance à la dynamique du « commun » de l¹Internet : questions autour du >>> « droit d¹entrée ». English version available here >>> . >>> Les communications seront en français, sauf deux qui seront présentées en >>> anglais. >>   >>> Vous trouverez en pièce jointe le texte de présentation générale du colloque >>> suivi de l¹introduction aux différentes sessions. >>   >>>  Horaire : Vendredi 27 mars : 9h-18h - Samedi 28 mars : 9h-13h00 >>> Adresse : Salle Vendôme, Ecole des Mines, 60 boulevard Saint-Michel 75272 >>> Paris Cedex 06 >>>   >>> Accès libre dans la limite des places disponibles - Inscription >>> obligatoire : contact at voxinternet.org >>>   >>> Programme >>>   >>> Vendredi 26 mars : accueil à partir de 9h >>>   >>> 9h30/10h Introduction générale : FRANÇOISE MASSIT-FOLLEA (Responsable >>> scientifique du programme) >>>   >>> 10h/12h30 - Session « Littératie » - Présidence : PAUL MATHIAS (Inspecteur >>> général de philosophie) >>>  DOMINIQUE BOULLIER (Fondation nationale des Sciences politiques, Paris) :  >>> Les dispositifs de contribution comparés selon les architectures de réseaux >>> sociaux. >>> >>> DANIEL PRADO (Direction Multilinguisme et Cyberespace, Union latine, >>> Paris) : Outils et enjeux d¹un Internet multilingue. >>> DIVINA FRAU-MEIGS (Université Paris III) : >>> Education aux médias électroniques et droits humains : une approche >>> publique, ouverte, participative et éthique. >>   >>> 14h30/18h00 ­ Session « Savoirs ouverts » - Présidence : DANIELE BOURCIER >>> (CERSA, CNRS-Université Paris II) >>> JOS DE MUL (Université Erasme, Rotterdam) : >>> The governance of biomics : commercial vs open source biology >>> DOMINIQUE CARDON (Laboratoire France Telecom) : >>> Comment l¹encyclopédie en ligne Wikipédia est-elle « gouvernée » ? >>> CECILE MEADEL (CSI, Ecole des Mines, Paris) : >>> Construction et validation des connaissances dans les échanges électroniques >>> sur des questions médicales. >>> HERVE LE CROSNIER (Université de Caen) : >>> Construire les biens communs de la connaissance. >>> >>>   >>> Samedi 27 mars >>> 9h/11h30 ­ Session « Accès physiques » - Présidence : PHILIPPE BARBET >>> (Université Paris XIII) >>> RAPHAËL SUIRE (Université de Rennes 1 / CREM-CNRS / MARSOUIN) : >>> L¹action publique au regard de la mesure des fractures numériques. >>> OLIVIER SYLVAIN (Fordham Law School, New-York) : >>> Internet Policy and Democratic Legitimacy : Broadband Regulation in the USA. >>> ANNIE CHENEAU-LOQUAY (CNRS-IEP Bordeaux) : >>> Accès universel et économie informelle : le déploiement de l¹Internet en >>> Afrique. >>>   >>> 11h45 >>> Allocution de MIREILLE DELMAS-MARTY, professeure au Collège de France, >>> Chaire Etudes juridiques comparatives et Internationalisation du droit. >>>> Pour toute information complémentaire, rendez-vous sur le >>>> site: www.voxinternet.org >>>> >>>> Ou écrire à contact at voxinternet.org >>>> >>>> Notre Adresse :  Maison des Sciences de l'Homme >>>>      Vox Internet - Bureau 04 >>>>        54 boulevard Raspail >>>>       75006 Paris >>>>         France >>>> Notre Tel : +33-1-49-54-21-93 >>>> >>>>   >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Feb 22 15:13:18 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 07:13:18 +1100 Subject: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee In-Reply-To: <12DC1BCE-942E-4662-9126-9FC2C5806B50@anime.org> Message-ID: Very interesting Gadi! As someone noted elsewhere, the most likely effect is ISPs will stop bundling email with their services, and people who don't manage their own domains will opt towards gmail, hotmail and similar services. But here we have a good concept - email address portability (who could disagree with it in principle) hitting a technology infrastructure that will find it difficult and problematic to cope with this. Wont this break SPF? And make spam a little easier? Depends on how it is implemented I suppose... Ian Peter > From: Gadi Evron > Reply-To: , Gadi Evron > Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:15:18 +0200 > To: > Subject: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee > > Hello folks, I hope this message is not considered off-topic, if it is > please let me know. > > The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's > committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full > legislation process of the Israeli parliament. > > While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make > use of their ISP's email service. > > According to this proposed bill, when a client transfers to a > different ISP the email address will optionally be his to take along, > "just like" mobile providers do today with phone numbers. > > This new legislation makes little technological sense, and will > certainly be a mess to handle operationally as well as > beurocratically, but it certainly is interesting, and at least the > notion is beautiful. > > The proposed bill can be found here [Doc, Hebrew]: > http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/computers/22022010/mail.doc > > Linked to from this ynet (leading Israeli news site) story, here: > http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3852744,00.html > > Gadi. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrespiazza at gmail.com Mon Feb 22 17:34:00 2010 From: andrespiazza at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9s_Piazza?=) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 19:34:00 -0300 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Glaser, Carlos Afonso, Demi, Raquel, and all the other persons involved in CGI process, I want to congratulate you all for this iniciative. I also put an "spanish translation" in my blog. www.andrespiazza.com if some of you want to make an opinion abuout this version I´ll be glad to receive that and If you want to use it, feel free. Regards, Andrés Piazza 2010/2/10 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > The Brazilian Principles are exemplary. If this set of principles could > inspire the Governments the world over, Internet would remain a free and > open medium. > > The Civil Society in Brazil, or better still, the Internet Steering > Committee of Brazil could proactively send this as a model document / > reference document to friendly governments. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: > >> Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. >> >> []s frats >> >> --c.a. >> >> ==== >> >> CGI.br >> Internet Steering Committee in Brazil >> >> Principles for the Governance and Use >> of the Internet in Brazil >> >> CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P >> June 2009 >> http://www.cgi.br >> rev.June 25 2009 >> >> The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd ordinary >> meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of São Paulo, has >> approved the following Resolution: >> >> CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE >> INTERNET IN BRAZIL >> >> Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and >> decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to approve >> the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: >> >> 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights >> The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of >> expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, recognizing >> them as essential to the preservation of a fair and democratic society. >> >> 2. Democratic and collaborative governance >> Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and >> democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors of >> society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a collective >> creation. >> >> 3. Universality >> Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human and >> social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an inclusive >> and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. >> >> 4. Diversity >> Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression must >> be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or values. >> >> >> 5. Innovation >> Internet governance must promote the continuous development and widespread >> dissemination of new technologies and models for access and use. >> >> 6. Network neutrality >> Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria >> only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or >> any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. >> >> 7. Network unaccountability >> All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at >> those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the means of >> access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of >> freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. >> >> 8. Functionality, security and stability >> Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively >> preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are consistent >> with international standards and encourage the adoption of best practices. >> >> 9. Standardization and interoperability >> The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate >> interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. >> >> 10. Legal and regulatory environments >> Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the >> Internet as a space for collaboration. >> >> ==== >> >> >> glaser at nic.br wrote: >> >>> >>> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Mon Feb 22 20:00:26 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:30:26 +0530 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: References: <20100210140610.11354neudn4pft0k@mail.nic.br> <4B72DB91.9080107@cafonso.ca> Message-ID: Hello Andres Piazza, I posted this at http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/02/inspiration-from-brazil-principles-for.html after making some finer changes from Carlos' text. I have changed the contents of point 7 as below: All actions against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at those directly responsible for such activities (upholding the fundamental principles freedom, privacy and respect for human rights) and not at the network which is a neutral medium of access and transport. I have changed the sub-topic heading to "Network Impunity". Does this sound alright and convey the idea? Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2010/2/23 Andrés Piazza > Glaser, Carlos Afonso, Demi, Raquel, and all the other persons involved in > CGI process, I want to congratulate you all for this iniciative. > > I also put an "spanish translation" in my blog. www.andrespiazza.com if > some of you want to make an opinion abuout this version I´ll be glad to > receive that and If you want to use it, feel free. > > Regards, > > Andrés Piazza > > 2010/2/10 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > The Brazilian Principles are exemplary. If this set of principles could >> inspire the Governments the world over, Internet would remain a free and >> open medium. >> >> The Civil Society in Brazil, or better still, the Internet Steering >> Committee of Brazil could proactively send this as a model document / >> reference document to friendly governments. >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> http://www.isocmadras.com >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >>> Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. >>> >>> []s frats >>> >>> --c.a. >>> >>> ==== >>> >>> CGI.br >>> Internet Steering Committee in Brazil >>> >>> Principles for the Governance and Use >>> of the Internet in Brazil >>> >>> CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P >>> June 2009 >>> http://www.cgi.br >>> rev.June 25 2009 >>> >>> The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd ordinary >>> meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of São Paulo, has >>> approved the following Resolution: >>> >>> CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE >>> INTERNET IN BRAZIL >>> >>> Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and >>> decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to approve >>> the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: >>> >>> 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights >>> The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of >>> expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, recognizing >>> them as essential to the preservation of a fair and democratic society. >>> >>> 2. Democratic and collaborative governance >>> Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and >>> democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors of >>> society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a collective >>> creation. >>> >>> 3. Universality >>> Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human and >>> social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an inclusive >>> and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. >>> >>> 4. Diversity >>> Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression >>> must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or values. >>> >>> >>> 5. Innovation >>> Internet governance must promote the continuous development and >>> widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access and use. >>> >>> 6. Network neutrality >>> Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria >>> only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or >>> any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. >>> >>> 7. Network unaccountability >>> All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at >>> those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the means of >>> access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of >>> freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. >>> >>> 8. Functionality, security and stability >>> Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively >>> preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are consistent >>> with international standards and encourage the adoption of best practices. >>> >>> 9. Standardization and interoperability >>> The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate >>> interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. >>> >>> 10. Legal and regulatory environments >>> Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the >>> Internet as a space for collaboration. >>> >>> ==== >>> >>> >>> glaser at nic.br wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... >>>> >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Mon Feb 22 20:50:57 2010 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 20:50:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> References: <71D9FA2A-D48C-4F92-8F1C-3E8F3A5D1ED5@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <45ed74051002221750i5e7c9ac3t5196491dda23c74f@mail.gmail.com> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org Hi Jeremy, hi Parminder, Ginger et al. I don't know if you have already submitted this letter but of course we hold best wishes for the IGC's success. One thing I notice is the opportunity to be a bit of a *stronger voice* in the matter. As I understand it, it's yes a definite plus to have government supporters, but wondering if one might want to say something like [proposed addition, pro tem]: > "The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) together with > governments, *and independently in its own voice, *,supports the views > expressed by several government delegates" ... etc. > {LDMF note: The aboive is a suggestion on concept - not necessarily detailed text drafting). I am very much interested in your thoughts. *Respectfully Interfacing*, and with warm regards, LDMF. On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > As per the latest comments received, here is a slightly rewritten > combination of Parminder's new text with a couple of points from my original > draft. So that we can move forward towards a consensus call next week, > please try to confine your comments to either significant points of > substance, or grammatical/typographical corrections, rather than just > rewriting the same ideas in a different form. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS > SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Dear Sir, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the views > expressed by several government delegates at the recent open consultations > on the IGF that the UN Secretary-General's report and recommendations on the > desirability of the continuation of the Forum, based on formal consultations > at IGF Sharm, should be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 > before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. > > Indications given at the meeting that this might not be the case have > caused some confusion, since this would mark a departure from established > practice. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS > follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS > issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed > consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. > > In addition, consideration of the recommendations by the CSTD will enable > widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned actors, including > governments, with this very important issue. The CSTD provides relatively > greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following > its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach" > (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, > 2008/217 and 2008/218. > > It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on > "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred > by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it > clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS > follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why the same should > not apply to the Secretary-General's report on the IGF. > > We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, the UN Secretary-General's report on continuation of the IGF be > made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the > UN membership make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per > the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. > > -- > 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 -- Disclaimer: Individual post. LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law / computing / humanities: For identification only: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, ageing, health, values, development, Gray Panthers, Committee on Mental Health Media and ITC, Discrimination SubComs. > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > ICT multiple decades - authored and taught original GML tages - became HTML; developed internet law on cyberlibel, reputation management etc. > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about event or continuing leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. P.S. While still in initial development - you are welcome to visit the startup (not yet with alternative text or captioning) *Respectful Interfaces* website - in order to browse, make requests, join in, and send suggestions to respectful.interfaces at gmail.com. To sample *respectful Interfaces* as an enterprise framework, with references to CCC/UN and WEF, click here: http://wp.me/PFqR6-K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 23 02:00:24 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:00:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <140633.31699.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Certainly something that is "incomprehesible" would not be sophisticated. And language should be used in a way as to be understood by the intended recipient. And if all we were talking about was the language that was used we would not be talking. But some thoughts and concepts are more sophisticated than others. I most assuredly am using sophisticated here in the sense of complex and multidisciplined. Not as any measure of "place in society".   Some technical jargon used in sociology is  difficult to understand for "most" people. Some telecommunications engineering jargon is difficult for "most" people --- regardless of mother language. Constitutional and inherint rights are not simple concepts.   So now for folks to say "keep it simple stupid" when dealing with the above we have a problem. One does not use futbal jargon to make cogent statements regarding inalienable rights - maybe metaphors as Jesus used them,, but not as a replacement for highly complicated words describing highly complicated issues. It is rude for me to expect highly trained computer engineering doctorates to bring themselve down to my level when discussing technical addressing protocal issues. Likewise if they do not grasp nomanklatura and propaganda and marketing and subliminal social messaging I should not have to speak at their level,,,,, but alas if they are my target audience I will in order to persuade them or educate them.   My main point is that we should not turn our backs on complicated ideas simply because some will not understand the complicated language that is used to discuss them. --- On Mon, 2/22/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 11:51 AM Hello Erid Dierker On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: I think we agree on this. I think we can both agree that writing in a style most easily undersood by all is optimum. Where we differ here, and not so much, is that when speaking to somebody we make sure that all listeners are easily accomodated.  That probably is not such a good idea. If the paper be for all to learn from,,, then write it one way. But if the paper be written so that a leader is pursuaded or influenced then write it for that reader/leader and that purpose.   If we are attempting to garner broad support for our position your technique and considerations would be at forefront.  In that our stated purpose is more focused on the Sec Gen then perhaps my thoughts should overshadow inclusiveness.  If it be your scenario then we are "grandstanding" and "playing for the crowds". I am a bit puzzled about what you said  earlier,  "If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the language be of intelligence and sophistication" I don't agree that proper respect  requires a language of "sophistication" (sophistication in the sense that the language is complex, incomprehensible to most of the CS participants). The language can be respectful while being simple. It would be a stereotype to assume that polite and formal communication ought to be 'sophisticated', (constructed in long sentences of relatively unintelligible words?). It can very much be a communication in short sentences and plain simple words and still radiate respect. Another perceived problem is that of the difficulty for those who don't speak English. Since it is a very important document from IGC, we can internally translate this one page document in a few other languages within a week after sending this document in English and make it available on the list for reference as also send it the to the UN to be included along with the document in English in their records. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.   I think better we do not say one thing and act another. --- On Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 5:28 PM We need to agree to differ. I cannot accept an argument that measures greatest and least on the basis of whether people speak English or not. And I believe in communication courtesy – an obligation on the speaker to make his/her point as clearly as possible concomitant with an obligation on the listener to make the effort necessary to understand.  On 21 February 2010 11:52, Eric Dierker wrote: In all aspects of communication respect is a two way street. If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the language be of intelligence and sophistication.   Too often in civil societies we are concerned about the least amoung us and are not likewise concerned of the greatest amoung us. It is of no help to lower standards so that those of lower standards are included. It is far better to set sights on raising the bar for all rather than lowering it to be seen politically correct. --- On Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 2:06 PM My point too. If we expect others to respect the diversity of languages used by civil society and generally online, then we need to be seen to be offering that respect ourselves. And I expect we would also like to be clearly understood by everyone, no matter which language they may feel comfortable in. Deirdre On 21 February 2010 09:22, Fearghas McKay wrote: On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary General on this issue?  Why are we so worried about the length of the statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our concerns. Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so much unsaid. I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just that the sentences are too long and complex. Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier to comprehend and translate accurately. Regards        f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 23 02:04:45 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 23:04:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <45ed74051002221750i5e7c9ac3t5196491dda23c74f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9473.47459.qm@web83911.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Sometimes when forging a consensus the extreme is prematurely discounted. Also sometimes the extremes provide us with a more clear insight into the middle ground. If we are truly trying to help the Sec Gen understand an idea or movement perhaps it is not such a good idea to hide the more radical propositions and positions. Who are we to filter the reality from the vision of the leaders? --- On Tue, 2/23/10, linda misek-falkoff wrote: From: linda misek-falkoff Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeremy Malcolm" Cc: "l.d. misek-falkoff" , respectful.interfaces at gmail.com Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 1:50 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, Jeremy Malcolm jeremy at ciroap.org   Hi Jeremy, hi Parminder, Ginger  et al.   I don't know if you have already submitted this letter but of course we hold best wishes for the IGC's success.   One thing I notice is the opportunity to be a bit of a stronger voice in the matter.  As I understand it, it's yes a definite plus to have government supporters, but wondering if one might want to say something like [proposed addition, pro tem]:   "The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) together with governments, and independently in its own voice, ,supports the views expressed by several government delegates" ... etc.      {LDMF note: The aboive  is a suggestion on concept - not necessarily detailed text drafting).   I am very much interested in your thoughts.   *Respectfully Interfacing*, and with warm regards, LDMF.   On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: As per the latest comments received, here is a slightly rewritten combination of Parminder's new text with a couple of points from my original draft.  So that we can move forward towards a consensus call next week, please try to confine your comments to either significant points of substance, or grammatical/typographical corrections, rather than just rewriting the same ideas in a different form. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Dear Sir, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) supports the views expressed by several government delegates at the recent open consultations on the IGF that the UN Secretary-General's report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Forum, based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm, should be presented to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010 before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. Indications given at the meeting that this might not be the case have caused some confusion, since this would mark a departure from established practice.  The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. In addition, consideration of the recommendations by the CSTD will enable widest possible discussion and engagement of concerned actors, including governments, with this very important issue.  The CSTD provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach"  (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. It is also very relevant to note here that UN Secretary General's report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration, which does make it clear that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. There is no reason why the same should not apply to the Secretary-General's report on the IGF. We therefore request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, the UN Secretary-General's report on continuation of the IGF be made available to the CSTD's annual session in May 2010, which will help the UN membership make an informed and considered decision on this matter as per the requirements of the Tunis Agenda. -- 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 -- Disclaimer:  Individual post. LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law /  computing / humanities: For identification only: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, ageing, health, values, development, Gray Panthers, Committee on Mental Health Media and ITC, Discrimination SubComs. > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > ICT multiple decades - authored and taught original GML tages - became HTML; developed internet law on cyberlibel, reputation management etc. > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > -  You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about event or continuing leadership interning). > - Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration are core values of the CCC/UN. P.S. While still in initial development -  you are welcome to visit the startup (not yet with alternative text or captioning) *Respectful Interfaces* website  - in order to browse, make requests, join in, and send suggestions to  respectful.interfaces at gmail.com.  To sample *respectful Interfaces* as an enterprise framework, with references to CCC/UN and WEF, click here: http://wp.me/PFqR6-K   -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 23 04:35:48 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:35:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <140633.31699.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <140633.31699.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: We seem to have strayed away from the point of this statement. Originally it was simply to express the concern of this group over the apparent proposed change in procedure for presentation and consideration of the statement of the United Nations Secretary General on the future of the Internet Governance Forum. This concern was also expressed by several governments at the recent open consultation in Geneva. Deirdre On 23 February 2010 03:00, Eric Dierker wrote: > Certainly something that is "incomprehesible" would not be sophisticated. > And language should be used in a way as to be understood by the intended > recipient. > And if all we were talking about was the language that was used we would > not be talking. > But some thoughts and concepts are more sophisticated than others. I most > assuredly am using sophisticated here in the sense of complex and > multidisciplined. Not as any measure of "place in society". > > Some technical jargon used in sociology is difficult to understand for > "most" people. Some telecommunications engineering jargon is difficult for > "most" people --- regardless of mother language. Constitutional and inherint > rights are not simple concepts. > > So now for folks to say "keep it simple stupid" when dealing with the above > we have a problem. One does not use futbal jargon to make cogent statements > regarding inalienable rights - maybe metaphors as Jesus used them,, but not > as a replacement for highly complicated words describing highly complicated > issues. It is rude for me to expect highly trained computer engineering > doctorates to bring themselve down to my level when discussing technical > addressing protocal issues. Likewise if they do not grasp nomanklatura and > propaganda and marketing and subliminal social messaging I should not have > to speak at their level,,,,, but alas if they are my target audience I will > in order to persuade them or educate them. > > My main point is that we should not turn our backs on complicated ideas > simply because some will not understand the complicated language that is > used to discuss them. > > --- On *Mon, 2/22/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy *wrote: > > > From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > CSTD > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" > > Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 11:51 AM > > > Hello Erid Dierker > > > > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Eric Dierker > > wrote: > >> I think we agree on this. I think we can both agree that writing in a >> style most easily undersood by all is optimum. Where we differ here, and not >> so much, is that when speaking to somebody we make sure that all listeners >> are easily accomodated. That probably is not such a good idea. If the paper >> be for all to learn from,,, then write it one way. But if the paper be >> written so that a leader is pursuaded or influenced then write it for that >> reader/leader and that purpose. >> >> If we are attempting to garner broad support for our position your >> technique and considerations would be at forefront. In that our stated >> purpose is more focused on the Sec Gen then perhaps my thoughts should >> overshadow inclusiveness. If it be your scenario then we are >> "grandstanding" and "playing for the crowds". >> > > I am a bit puzzled about what you said earlier, > > "If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated > person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that > the language be of intelligence and sophistication" > > > I don't agree that proper respect requires a language of "sophistication" > (sophistication in the sense that the language is > complex, incomprehensible to most of the CS participants). The language can > be respectful while being simple. It would be a stereotype to assume that > polite and formal communication ought to be 'sophisticated', (constructed in > long sentences of relatively unintelligible words?). It can very much be a > communication in short sentences and plain simple words and still radiate > respect. > > Another perceived problem is that of the difficulty for those who don't > speak English. Since it is a very important document from IGC, we can > internally translate this one page document in a few other languages within > a week after sending this document in English and make it available on the > list for reference as also send it the to the UN to be included along with > the document in English in their records. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. > > > > >> I think better we do not say one thing and act another. >> >> >> --- On *Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams >> >* wrote: >> >> >> From: Deirdre Williams >> > >> Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >> CSTD >> To: "Eric Dierker" >> > >> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, >> "Fearghas McKay" >> > >> Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 5:28 PM >> >> >> We need to agree to differ. >> >> I cannot accept an argument that measures greatest and least on the basis >> of whether people speak English or not. And I believe in communication >> courtesy – an obligation on the speaker to make his/her point as clearly as >> possible concomitant with an obligation on the listener to make the effort >> necessary to understand. >> On 21 February 2010 11:52, Eric Dierker >> > wrote: >> >>> In all aspects of communication respect is a two way street. If the >>> document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of >>> high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the >>> language be of intelligence and sophistication. >>> >>> Too often in civil societies we are concerned about the least amoung us >>> and are not likewise concerned of the greatest amoung us. It is of no help >>> to lower standards so that those of lower standards are included. It is far >>> better to set sights on raising the bar for all rather than lowering it to >>> be seen politically correct. >>> >>> --- On *Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams >>> >* wrote: >>> >>> >>> From: Deirdre Williams > >>> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >>> CSTD >>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, >>> "Fearghas McKay" >>> > >>> Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 2:06 PM >>> >>> >>> My point too. If we expect others to respect the diversity of languages >>> used by civil society and generally online, then we need to be seen to be >>> offering that respect ourselves. >>> And I expect we would also like to be clearly understood by everyone, no >>> matter which language they may feel comfortable in. >>> Deirdre >>> >>> On 21 February 2010 09:22, Fearghas McKay >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >>>> >>>> How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary >>>>> General on this issue? Why are we so worried about the length of the >>>>> statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too >>>>> many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this >>>>> statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the >>>>> statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our >>>>> concerns. >>>>> >>>>> Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so >>>>> much unsaid. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just >>>> that the sentences are too long and complex. >>>> >>>> Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier >>>> to comprehend and translate accurately. >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> >>>> f >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 >>> >>> -----Inline Attachment Follows----- >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> 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 > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Tue Feb 23 04:37:33 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:37:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] REVISION 5 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD Message-ID: <802A7A97-3C2B-4251-9C3D-FF797C8292D0@ciroap.org> I am planning to open a 48 hours consensus call on this (or something very like it) later in the week. At this point, most of the changes being suggested seem to be just changing the order or emphasis of points on which we are already agreed. I am omitting the address and such from the top of the letter, but they will be included when it is sent. Also to avoid doubt, the subject line of this thread will not be part of our message to the UNSG. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Your Excellency, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates you on the completion and imminent delivery of your report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm. We request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, and in accordance with established practice, these recommendations be made available to the annual session of the Committee on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in May 2010. Our request is in line with the views expressed by several government delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in February 2010, to the effect that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration. This suggests that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we therefore believe that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD to enable widest possible discussion and engagement of all actors with this very important issue. Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your leadership, and for your ongoing support of civil society's participation at the Internet Governance Forum. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Tue Feb 23 05:29:30 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 06:29:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] REVISION 5 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <802A7A97-3C2B-4251-9C3D-FF797C8292D0@ciroap.org> References: <802A7A97-3C2B-4251-9C3D-FF797C8292D0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: One last quibble - in the final document can we please follow the convention of using the full form before we use the acronym for all acronyms? Thank you. Deirdre On 23 February 2010 05:37, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > I am planning to open a 48 hours consensus call on this (or something very > like it) later in the week. At this point, most of the changes being > suggested seem to be just changing the order or emphasis of points on which > we are already agreed. I am omitting the address and such from the top of > the letter, but they will be included when it is sent. Also to avoid doubt, > the subject line of this thread will not be part of our message to the UNSG. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS > SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Your Excellency, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates you on the > completion and imminent delivery of your report and recommendations on the > desirability of the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm. > > We request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, and in > accordance with established practice, these recommendations be made > available to the annual session of the Committee on Science and Technology > for Development (CSTD) in May 2010. > > Our request is in line with the views expressed by several government > delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in February 2010, to the > effect that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD > before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. > > The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow > up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS > issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed > consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. > > The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement > than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into > account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to > ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. > > We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced cooperation" > which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the > CSTD for its prior consideration. This suggests that ECOSOC would normally > prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. > > Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we therefore > believe that your report and recommendations should be presented to the > CSTD to enable widest possible discussion > and engagement of all actors with this very important issue. > > Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your leadership, > and for your ongoing support of civil society's participation at > the Internet Governance Forum. > > -- > > *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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 23 08:10:03 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:10:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION bypassing CSTD by the words we use In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <774593.36928.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Deirdre,   This is about the language we want to be using when drafting that statement.  It is not a stray.  Many say "it is not what you say but how you say it". What the very respectful interchange is about is the parameters of the "language" we use.  We are striving to show some light on the issue of making a statement internationally internet literate at the highest level --- the level that does the most good for the most, for there is no nobler purpose in governance.   This is also about inclusiveness at the most basic level.  For if we invite the masses but speak only to the elite, who do we fool but ourselves. We also often hear "people judge you by the words you use". It is important that we not sound haughty and snobbish, while it is important that we do not sacrifice specificity and exactness for simplicity.   So I believe if we are to argue a process that does not bypass the CSTD we must not use language that bypasses that same society by arrogance on the one hand and inaccuracy on the other. --- On Tue, 2/23/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 9:35 AM We seem to have strayed away from the point of this statement. Originally it was simply to express the concern of this group over the apparent proposed change in procedure for presentation and consideration of the statement of the United Nations Secretary General on the future of the Internet Governance Forum. This concern was also expressed by several governments at the recent open consultation in Geneva.  Deirdre On 23 February 2010 03:00, Eric Dierker wrote: Certainly something that is "incomprehesible" would not be sophisticated. And language should be used in a way as to be understood by the intended recipient. And if all we were talking about was the language that was used we would not be talking. But some thoughts and concepts are more sophisticated than others. I most assuredly am using sophisticated here in the sense of complex and multidisciplined. Not as any measure of "place in society".   Some technical jargon used in sociology is  difficult to understand for "most" people. Some telecommunications engineering jargon is difficult for "most" people --- regardless of mother language. Constitutional and inherint rights are not simple concepts.   So now for folks to say "keep it simple stupid" when dealing with the above we have a problem. One does not use futbal jargon to make cogent statements regarding inalienable rights - maybe metaphors as Jesus used them,, but not as a replacement for highly complicated words describing highly complicated issues. It is rude for me to expect highly trained computer engineering doctorates to bring themselve down to my level when discussing technical addressing protocal issues. Likewise if they do not grasp nomanklatura and propaganda and marketing and subliminal social messaging I should not have to speak at their level,,,,, but alas if they are my target audience I will in order to persuade them or educate them.   My main point is that we should not turn our backs on complicated ideas simply because some will not understand the complicated language that is used to discuss them. --- On Mon, 2/22/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 11:51 AM Hello Erid Dierker On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Eric Dierker wrote: I think we agree on this. I think we can both agree that writing in a style most easily undersood by all is optimum. Where we differ here, and not so much, is that when speaking to somebody we make sure that all listeners are easily accomodated.  That probably is not such a good idea. If the paper be for all to learn from,,, then write it one way. But if the paper be written so that a leader is pursuaded or influenced then write it for that reader/leader and that purpose.   If we are attempting to garner broad support for our position your technique and considerations would be at forefront.  In that our stated purpose is more focused on the Sec Gen then perhaps my thoughts should overshadow inclusiveness.  If it be your scenario then we are "grandstanding" and "playing for the crowds". I am a bit puzzled about what you said  earlier,  "If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the language be of intelligence and sophistication" I don't agree that proper respect  requires a language of "sophistication" (sophistication in the sense that the language is complex, incomprehensible to most of the CS participants). The language can be respectful while being simple. It would be a stereotype to assume that polite and formal communication ought to be 'sophisticated', (constructed in long sentences of relatively unintelligible words?). It can very much be a communication in short sentences and plain simple words and still radiate respect. Another perceived problem is that of the difficulty for those who don't speak English. Since it is a very important document from IGC, we can internally translate this one page document in a few other languages within a week after sending this document in English and make it available on the list for reference as also send it the to the UN to be included along with the document in English in their records. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.   I think better we do not say one thing and act another. --- On Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 5:28 PM We need to agree to differ. I cannot accept an argument that measures greatest and least on the basis of whether people speak English or not. And I believe in communication courtesy – an obligation on the speaker to make his/her point as clearly as possible concomitant with an obligation on the listener to make the effort necessary to understand.  On 21 February 2010 11:52, Eric Dierker wrote: In all aspects of communication respect is a two way street. If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the language be of intelligence and sophistication.   Too often in civil societies we are concerned about the least amoung us and are not likewise concerned of the greatest amoung us. It is of no help to lower standards so that those of lower standards are included. It is far better to set sights on raising the bar for all rather than lowering it to be seen politically correct. --- On Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams wrote: From: Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 2:06 PM My point too. If we expect others to respect the diversity of languages used by civil society and generally online, then we need to be seen to be offering that respect ourselves. And I expect we would also like to be clearly understood by everyone, no matter which language they may feel comfortable in. Deirdre On 21 February 2010 09:22, Fearghas McKay wrote: On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary General on this issue?  Why are we so worried about the length of the statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our concerns. Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so much unsaid. I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just that the sentences are too long and complex. Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier to comprehend and translate accurately. Regards        f ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 23 08:33:26 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:33:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] REVISION 5 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD In-Reply-To: <802A7A97-3C2B-4251-9C3D-FF797C8292D0@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <548131.85282.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Jeremy,   There are many avenues to reach the same destination.  I believe that this statement is a very good idea. It seems quite clear that ideas will be enhanced and discussion increased and participation raised in quality if the suggestions therein are followed. My personal letter that follows a much less celebrated path is a little more simple: Dear Sir,   By reading my letter you have already decided upon and in fact acted upon my request. Thank you for taking time in both formal and informal process to listen and read what contributions concerned citizen/netizens have regarding our Internet. I have found that when men of your caliber take the time to allow for greater input and then consider such input our Nations can in fact be more United. As pointed out earlier, I highly recommend and encourage you to continue to stay informed of and profit by the work and input at governance at lists.cpsr.org  I trust the participants will provide good insight and contribution to your decision making process.   As always, proud to be of service,   Eric Dierker --- On Tue, 2/23/10, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: From: Jeremy Malcolm Subject: [governance] REVISION 5 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 9:37 AM I am planning to open a 48 hours consensus call on this (or something very like it) later in the week.  At this point, most of the changes being suggested seem to be just changing the order or emphasis of points on which we are already agreed.  I am omitting the address and such from the top of the letter, but they will be included when it is sent.  Also to avoid doubt, the subject line of this thread will not be part of our message to the UNSG. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Your Excellency, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates you on the completion and imminent delivery of your report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm. We request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, and in accordance with established practice, these recommendations be made available to the annual session of the Committee on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in May 2010. Our request is in line with the views expressed by several government delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in February 2010, to the effect that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach"  (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration.  This suggests that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we therefore believe that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD to enable widest possible discussion and engagement of all actors with this very important issue. Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your leadership, and for your ongoing support of civil society's participation at the Internet Governance Forum. --  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. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Tue Feb 23 08:54:04 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 05:54:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <201766.97233.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Gentlefolks,   This is very good work in my always, trying to be, but never humble opinion.  There is a serious legalize type flaw however. The problem is in the sentenced I bolded. This language creates a bit more than even a presumption of innocence beyond question regarding Networks.  Through the eyes of a judge this language may even suggest that a Network cannot legally be conducting illicit activity. Clearly what is desired here is to prevent attack on a Network without cause to believe they have actually done anything wrong. The language presents itself as saying the Networks are always neutral and not saying that an infact neutral network should be held harmless. I do not believe it is your desire to give immunity to Networks but rather to protect innocent neutral networks. --- On Tue, 2/23/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: Hello Andres Piazza, I posted this at http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/02/inspiration-from-brazil-principles-for.html after making some finer changes from Carlos' text. I have changed the contents of point 7 as below: All actions against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at those directly responsible for such activities (upholding the fundamental principles freedom, privacy and respect for human rights) and not at the network which is a neutral medium of access and transport.  I have changed the sub-topic heading to "Network Impunity".  Does this sound alright and convey the idea? Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2010/2/23 Andrés Piazza Glaser, Carlos Afonso, Demi, Raquel, and all the other persons involved in CGI process, I want to congratulate you all for this iniciative. I also put an "spanish translation" in my blog. www.andrespiazza.com if some of you want to make an opinion abuout this version I´ll be glad to receive that and If you want to use it, feel free. Regards, Andrés Piazza 2010/2/10 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy The Brazilian Principles are exemplary.  If this set of principles could inspire the Governments the world over, Internet would remain a free and open medium. The Civil Society in Brazil, or better still, the Internet Steering Committee of Brazil could proactively send this as a model document / reference document to friendly governments. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. []s frats --c.a. ==== CGI.br Internet Steering Committee in Brazil Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet in Brazil CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P June 2009 http://www.cgi.br rev.June 25 2009 The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd ordinary meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of São Paulo, has approved the following Resolution: CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE INTERNET IN BRAZIL Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to approve the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: 1.      Freedom, privacy and human rights The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, recognizing them as essential to the preservation of a fair and democratic society. 2.      Democratic and collaborative governance Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the participation of the various  sectors of society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a collective creation. 3.      Universality Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. 4.      Diversity Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or values. 5.      Innovation Internet governance must promote the continuous development and widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access and use. 6.      Network neutrality Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. 7.      Network unaccountability All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the means of access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. 8.      Functionality, security and stability Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are consistent with international standards and encourage the adoption of best practices. 9.      Standardization and interoperability The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. 10.     Legal and regulatory environments Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the Internet as a space for collaboration. ==== glaser at nic.br wrote: See the brazilian Internet Principles .... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Tue Feb 23 13:09:51 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:39:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: <201766.97233.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> References: <201766.97233.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hello Eric Dierker If the network is 'stupid' and remains so, it can not possibly be conducting illegal activity and it wouldn't be right to hold it responsible. Your observation would become relevant if the networks become 'intelligent' by commercial design as desired by the telecommunication business union, or by narrow Governments who believe in network surveillance. It is a complex situation. If legal provisions are created to make the networks accountable, the networks would be forced to build in the 'intelligence' required to discriminate, which would accord the capability for the networks to indulge in undesirable activities, as an unintended consequence. But in a climate of policies favorable to network neutrality, "network immunity" becomes a relevant concept. At least it merits an open debate. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy * * On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: > Gentlefolks, > > This is very good work in my always, trying to be, but never humble > opinion. There is a serious legalize type flaw however. The problem is in > the sentenced I bolded. This language creates a bit more than even a > presumption of innocence beyond question regarding *Networks.* Through > the eyes of a judge this language may even suggest that a Network cannot > legally be conducting illicit activity. Clearly what is desired here is to > prevent attack on a Network without cause to believe they have actually done > anything wrong. The language presents itself as saying the Networks are > always neutral and not saying that an infact neutral network should be held > harmless. I do not believe it is your desire to give immunity to Networks > but rather to protect innocent neutral networks. > > > --- On *Tue, 2/23/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy isolatedn at gmail.com> > * wrote: > > Hello Andres Piazza, > > > I posted this at > http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/02/inspiration-from-brazil-principles-for.html > after making some finer changes from Carlos' text. > > I have changed the contents of point 7 as below: > > *All actions against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at > those directly responsible for such activities (upholding the fundamental > principles freedom, privacy and respect for human rights) and not at the > network which is a neutral medium of access and transport*. > > I have changed the sub-topic heading to "Network Impunity". Does this > sound alright and convey the idea? > > Thank you > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > 2010/2/23 Andrés Piazza > > > >> Glaser, Carlos Afonso, Demi, Raquel, and all the other persons involved in >> CGI process, I want to congratulate you all for this iniciative. >> >> I also put an "spanish translation" in my blog. www.andrespiazza.com if >> some of you want to make an opinion abuout this version I´ll be glad to >> receive that and If you want to use it, feel free. >> >> Regards, >> >> Andrés Piazza >> >> 2010/2/10 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> > >> >> The Brazilian Principles are exemplary. If this set of principles could >>> inspire the Governments the world over, Internet would remain a free and >>> open medium. >>> >>> The Civil Society in Brazil, or better still, the Internet Steering >>> Committee of Brazil could proactively send this as a model document / >>> reference document to friendly governments. >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. >>>> >>>> []s frats >>>> >>>> --c.a. >>>> >>>> ==== >>>> >>>> CGI.br >>>> Internet Steering Committee in Brazil >>>> >>>> Principles for the Governance and Use >>>> of the Internet in Brazil >>>> >>>> CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P >>>> June 2009 >>>> http://www.cgi.br >>>> rev.June 25 2009 >>>> >>>> The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd ordinary >>>> meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of São Paulo, has >>>> approved the following Resolution: >>>> >>>> CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE >>>> INTERNET IN BRAZIL >>>> >>>> Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and >>>> decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to approve >>>> the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: >>>> >>>> 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights >>>> The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of >>>> expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, recognizing >>>> them as essential to the preservation of a fair and democratic society. >>>> >>>> 2. Democratic and collaborative governance >>>> Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and >>>> democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors of >>>> society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a collective >>>> creation. >>>> >>>> 3. Universality >>>> Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human >>>> and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an >>>> inclusive and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. >>>> >>>> 4. Diversity >>>> Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression >>>> must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or values. >>>> >>>> >>>> 5. Innovation >>>> Internet governance must promote the continuous development and >>>> widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access and use. >>>> >>>> 6. Network neutrality >>>> Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria >>>> only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or >>>> any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. >>>> >>>> 7. Network unaccountability >>>> All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed >>>> at those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the means of >>>> access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of >>>> freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. >>>> >>>> 8. Functionality, security and stability >>>> Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively >>>> preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are consistent >>>> with international standards and encourage the adoption of best practices. >>>> >>>> 9. Standardization and interoperability >>>> The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate >>>> interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. >>>> >>>> 10. Legal and regulatory environments >>>> Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the >>>> Internet as a space for collaboration. >>>> >>>> ==== >>>> >>>> >>>> glaser at nic.brwrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>>> >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>>> >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>>> >>>> For all list information and functions, see: >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>>> >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>>> >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> >> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com Tue Feb 23 17:11:45 2010 From: ldmisekfalkoff at gmail.com (linda misek-falkoff) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 17:11:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: References: <201766.97233.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <45ed74051002231411m4ecc1914s7c4addd0de081126@mail.gmail.com> Dear Siva: So if networks themselves get accredited with rights and duties, what will be the proportions of the famous (phrase) "artificial intellgene and natural stupidity" in the mix. (?) Warmly, Linda M F. 2010/2/23 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > Hello Eric Dierker > > If the network is 'stupid' and remains so, it can not possibly be > conducting > illegal activity and it wouldn't be right to hold it responsible. Your > observation would become relevant if the networks become 'intelligent' by > commercial design as desired by the telecommunication business union, or by > narrow Governments who believe in network surveillance. > > It is a complex situation. If legal provisions are created to make the > networks accountable, the networks would be forced to build in the > 'intelligence' required to discriminate, which would accord the capability > for the networks to indulge in undesirable activities, as an unintended > consequence. > > But in a climate of policies favorable to network neutrality, "network > immunity" becomes a relevant concept. At least it merits an open debate. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > * > * > > > > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Eric Dierker > wrote: > > > Gentlefolks, > > > > This is very good work in my always, trying to be, but never humble > > opinion. There is a serious legalize type flaw however. The problem is > in > > the sentenced I bolded. This language creates a bit more than even a > > presumption of innocence beyond question regarding *Networks.* Through > > the eyes of a judge this language may even suggest that a Network cannot > > legally be conducting illicit activity. Clearly what is desired here is > to > > prevent attack on a Network without cause to believe they have actually > done > > anything wrong. The language presents itself as saying the Networks are > > always neutral and not saying that an infact neutral network should be > held > > harmless. I do not believe it is your desire to give immunity to Networks > > but rather to protect innocent neutral networks. > > > > > > --- On *Tue, 2/23/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy isolatedn at gmail.com>< > isolatedn at gmail.com%3E+wrote:> > > * wrote: > > > > Hello Andres Piazza, > > > > > > I posted this at > > > http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/02/inspiration-from-brazil-principles-for.html > > after making some finer changes from Carlos' text. > > > > I have changed the contents of point 7 as below: > > > > *All actions against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at > > those directly responsible for such activities (upholding the fundamental > > principles freedom, privacy and respect for human rights) and not at the > > network which is a neutral medium of access and transport*. > > > > I have changed the sub-topic heading to "Network Impunity". Does this > > sound alright and convey the idea? > > > > Thank you > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > > > > > 2010/2/23 Andrés Piazza http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=andrespiazza at gmail.com> > > > > > > >> Glaser, Carlos Afonso, Demi, Raquel, and all the other persons involved > in > >> CGI process, I want to congratulate you all for this iniciative. > >> > >> I also put an "spanish translation" in my blog. www.andrespiazza.com if > >> some of you want to make an opinion abuout this version I´ll be glad to > >> receive that and If you want to use it, feel free. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Andrés Piazza > >> > >> 2010/2/10 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=isolatedn at gmail.com> > >> > > >> > >> The Brazilian Principles are exemplary. If this set of principles could > >>> inspire the Governments the world over, Internet would remain a free > and > >>> open medium. > >>> > >>> The Civil Society in Brazil, or better still, the Internet Steering > >>> Committee of Brazil could proactively send this as a model document / > >>> reference document to friendly governments. > >>> > >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > >>> http://www.isocmadras.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ca at cafonso.ca> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. > >>>> > >>>> []s frats > >>>> > >>>> --c.a. > >>>> > >>>> ==== > >>>> > >>>> CGI.br > >>>> Internet Steering Committee in Brazil > >>>> > >>>> Principles for the Governance and Use > >>>> of the Internet in Brazil > >>>> > >>>> CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P > >>>> June 2009 > >>>> http://www.cgi.br > >>>> rev.June 25 2009 > >>>> > >>>> The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd > ordinary > >>>> meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of São Paulo, > has > >>>> approved the following Resolution: > >>>> > >>>> CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE > >>>> INTERNET IN BRAZIL > >>>> > >>>> Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and > >>>> decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to > approve > >>>> the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: > >>>> > >>>> 1. Freedom, privacy and human rights > >>>> The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of > >>>> expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, > recognizing > >>>> them as essential to the preservation of a fair and democratic > society. > >>>> > >>>> 2. Democratic and collaborative governance > >>>> Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral > and > >>>> democratic manner, with the participation of the various sectors of > >>>> society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a > collective > >>>> creation. > >>>> > >>>> 3. Universality > >>>> Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human > >>>> and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an > >>>> inclusive and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. > >>>> > >>>> 4. Diversity > >>>> Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression > >>>> must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or > values. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 5. Innovation > >>>> Internet governance must promote the continuous development and > >>>> widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access and > use. > >>>> > >>>> 6. Network neutrality > >>>> Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical > criteria > >>>> only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural > factors or > >>>> any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. > >>>> > >>>> 7. Network unaccountability > >>>> All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed > >>>> at those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the > means of > >>>> access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of > >>>> freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. > >>>> > >>>> 8. Functionality, security and stability > >>>> Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively > >>>> preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are > consistent > >>>> with international standards and encourage the adoption of best > practices. > >>>> > >>>> 9. Standardization and interoperability > >>>> The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate > >>>> interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. > >>>> > >>>> 10. Legal and regulatory environments > >>>> Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the > >>>> Internet as a space for collaboration. > >>>> > >>>> ==== > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> glaser at nic.br< > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=glaser at nic.br>wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> See the brazilian Internet Principles .... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org< > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> > >>>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org< > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >>>>> > >>>>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>>>> > >>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>>>> > >>>>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org< > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> > >>>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org< > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >>>> > >>>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>>> > >>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ____________________________________________________________ > >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org< > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> > >>> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >>> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org< > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > >>> > >>> For all list information and functions, see: > >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >>> > >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org< > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance at lists.cpsr.org> > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org< > http://us.mc839.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- Disclaimer: Individual post. LDMF. Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff > 914 769 3652 > law / computing / humanities: For identification only: > Founder/Director *Respectful Interfaces*; > Member, Board, Secretary (Officer) - Communications Coordination Committee for the > U.N.; > World Education Fellowship; > Member Committees on disability, ageing, health, values, development, Gray Panthers, Committee on Mental Health Media and ITC, Discrimination SubComs. > President, National Disability Party (NDP); Steering Seat, International Disability Caucus; > Persons with Pain Intl., co-founded with Carol J. Levy; > ICT multiple decades - authored and taught original GML tages - became HTML; developed internet law on cyberlibel, reputation management etc. > Other affiliations on Request. > > n.b.: > - You are welcome to join *Respectful Interfaces.* The *Respectful > Interfaces* Coda is: "Achieving Dialogue While Cherishing Diversity" (ask > about event or continuing leadership interning). P.S. While still in initial development - you are welcome to visit the startup (not yet with alternative text or captioning) *Respectful Interfaces* website - in order to browse, make requests, join in, and send suggestions to respectful.interfaces at gmail.com. To sample *respectful Interfaces* as an enterprise framework, with references to CCC/UN and WEF, click here: http://wp.me/PFqR6-K. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 23 22:34:43 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:34:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee In-Reply-To: References: <12DC1BCE-942E-4662-9126-9FC2C5806B50@anime.org>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> There is a very simple way to get a fully portable email address: register a domain name. ;-) > But here we have a good concept - email address portability (who could > disagree with it in principle) I could disagree with it in principle! Legislatively granting end users a property right in a domain name and user ID of an ISP they no longer pay is a good example of taking consumer activism too far, at which point it reverses itself and becomes anti-consumer, because by expropriating suppliers it generates all kinds of unintended and generally destructive market repercussions to achieve very small benefits. I would be very interested to know who lobbied for and promoted this bill. --MM ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter at ianpeter.com] Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 3:13 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Gadi Evron Subject: Re: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee Very interesting Gadi! As someone noted elsewhere, the most likely effect is ISPs will stop bundling email with their services, and people who don't manage their own domains will opt towards gmail, hotmail and similar services. But here we have a good concept - email address portability (who could disagree with it in principle) hitting a technology infrastructure that will find it difficult and problematic to cope with this. Wont this break SPF? And make spam a little easier? Depends on how it is implemented I suppose... Ian Peter > From: Gadi Evron > Reply-To: , Gadi Evron > Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:15:18 +0200 > To: > Subject: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee > > Hello folks, I hope this message is not considered off-topic, if it is > please let me know. > > The email portability bill has just been approved by the Knesset's > committee for legislation, sending it on its way for the full > legislation process of the Israeli parliament. > > While many users own a free email account, many in Israel still make > use of their ISP's email service. > > According to this proposed bill, when a client transfers to a > different ISP the email address will optionally be his to take along, > "just like" mobile providers do today with phone numbers. > > This new legislation makes little technological sense, and will > certainly be a mess to handle operationally as well as > beurocratically, but it certainly is interesting, and at least the > notion is beautiful. > > The proposed bill can be found here [Doc, Hebrew]: > http://my.ynet.co.il/pic/computers/22022010/mail.doc > > Linked to from this ynet (leading Israeli news site) story, here: > http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3852744,00.html > > Gadi. > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 23 22:44:37 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 22:44:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] REVISION 5 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <802A7A97-3C2B-4251-9C3D-FF797C8292D0@ciroap.org>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> This looks fine, Jeremy. A very minor issue: please refer to "Sharm" as Sharm-el Sheik, Egypt. ------- On 23 February 2010 05:37, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: I am planning to open a 48 hours consensus call on this (or something very like it) later in the week. At this point, most of the changes being suggested seem to be just changing the order or emphasis of points on which we are already agreed. I am omitting the address and such from the top of the letter, but they will be included when it is sent. Also to avoid doubt, the subject line of this thread will not be part of our message to the UNSG. AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Your Excellency, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates you on the completion and imminent delivery of your report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), based on formal consultations at IGF Sharm. We request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, and in accordance with established practice, these recommendations be made available to the annual session of the Committee on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in May 2010. Our request is in line with the views expressed by several government delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in February 2010, to the effect that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD before being considered by the ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration. This suggests that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we therefore believe that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD to enable widest possible discussion and engagement of all actors with this very important issue. Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your leadership, and for your ongoing support of civil society's participation at the Internet Governance Forum. -- 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 -- “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 mueller at syr.edu Tue Feb 23 23:18:53 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 23:18:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> This is a very interesting exchange, and renews my interest in this list. I don't have time to respond in detail, but wish to bang out a few reactions. I agree with Parminder that there is, and always has been, a danger that IGF is used as a pre-emptive mechanism; that is, as a generic Internet issues (not governance) conference that acts as a substitute for political contention around the real IG issues and actually delays more institutionalized forms of collective action. The problem is that the parties with real, operational stakes in IG - including nation-states, the ICANN regime and the big private sector players - can't agree on doing anything else, so pushing for more risks provoking their exit. It's also not clear that loose, anarchistic arrangements aren't in fact better for society as a whole at this stage. Be careful what you ask for. Any form of governance we arrive at now will emerge from bargains among power brokers and when I contemplate the kinds of agreements about how to govern the Internet that could at this stage emerge from a more powerful institution it doesn't make my heart sing. The public is insufficiently mobilized and authoritarian forces too deeply rooted in too many places. Take a look at what emerges from ICANN/GAC, for a mildest example, or from nation-state internet regulations (including e.g. France, the U.S. and Australia) for worse examples. Second, We need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for good governance and appropriate institutions; MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Jeanette and Bertrand, First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this procedural part. However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement friendly and not developed countries? Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls within their own territories. Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of IGF, with no consideration to the fact that 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to which it does so. 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make recommendations where necessary. I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email. >para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or >No question. Section 74 of TA reads "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum ..........' and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review". Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into the oblivion. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature. The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Feb 24 01:41:21 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:41:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <12DC1BCE-942E-4662-9126-9FC2C5806B50@anime.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <20100224064121.GA15353@musti.tarvainen.info> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:34:43PM -0500, Milton L Mueller (mueller at syr.edu) wro > There is a very simple way to get a fully portable email address: > register a domain name. ;-) That is also a rather obvious solution for ISPs if this law passes: just register a new domain name for each customer. It costs little enough nowadays (dollar per month or so, and I'd bet someone like Tokelau would make them an even cheaper offer). Alternatively, just giving each customer their own subdomain with company suffix (user at user.company.example.com) would make redirection cheap: just adjust MX records. Or a number of ISPs might for a common company just for managing email addresses, by using a common 2nd level domain and give each user their own 3rd level domain and just manage MX records for them. > Legislatively granting end users a property right in a domain name > and user ID of an ISP they no longer pay Perhaps the idea is that email addresses should not be associated with ISPs and their domains at all, that is, effectively force them to register independent domains for their email customers. Of course it's consumers who end up paying for it, as always. But if sufficiently large number of them want it, it'll be cheaper if it's mandatory - at the expense of those who don't want it, of course. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Wed Feb 24 02:52:53 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:52:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hi, I think that is is dangerous and problematic to be abandoning the goal of Multistakeholder Governance. Once you go back to the 'individual is the thing', you have played into the Government position that they are the representatives of the individuals within their borders. Yes, each of the Stakeholders needs to find a democratic foundation and there has to be a fair and representative relationship in relation to the governance, an we need to make sure that we do not limit the number of character of the stakeholder groups - there may be more the 3/4/5 currently defined in Internet governance. but blatant individual-votism will just bring up back to the old notions that it is the nation state that is the individual's representative and support those who think Ig is just a matter of multilateral decision making. a. On 24 Feb 2010, at 05:18, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Second, We need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for good governance and appropriate institutions; MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 03:45:17 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:15:17 +0530 Subject: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee In-Reply-To: <20100224064121.GA15353@musti.tarvainen.info> References: <12DC1BCE-942E-4662-9126-9FC2C5806B50@anime.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <20100224064121.GA15353@musti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hello Tapani Tarvainen, This discussion is very relevant for an ICANN working group examining domain name post expiry issues. While you suggest a Domain /subdomain-name for every ISP's customers, independent owners of domain names land up in email continuity issues, BECAUSE OF their domain ownership, at times when they fail to renew their domain names. When domain names are not renewed either due to choice or because the user doesn't remember to do so, their email is discontinued (in most cases) with no possible information to the user about what is bounced or discarded. If such creative solutions could exist for ISPs to offer email portability, easier solutions could be thought of for the Registrars to offer a similar solution to the Domain Registrants (at the time of expiry). Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Tapani Tarvainen < tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 10:34:43PM -0500, Milton L Mueller ( > mueller at syr.edu) wro > > > There is a very simple way to get a fully portable email address: > > register a domain name. ;-) > > That is also a rather obvious solution for ISPs if this law passes: > just register a new domain name for each customer. > It costs little enough nowadays (dollar per month or so, > and I'd bet someone like Tokelau would make them an even > cheaper offer). > > Alternatively, just giving each customer their own subdomain > with company suffix (user at user.company.example.com) > would make redirection cheap: just adjust MX records. > > Or a number of ISPs might for a common company just for > managing email addresses, by using a common 2nd level > domain and give each user their own 3rd level domain > and just manage MX records for them. > > > Legislatively granting end users a property right in a domain name > > and user ID of an ISP they no longer pay > > Perhaps the idea is that email addresses should not be associated > with ISPs and their domains at all, that is, effectively force them > to register independent domains for their email customers. > > Of course it's consumers who end up paying for it, as always. > But if sufficiently large number of them want it, it'll be > cheaper if it's mandatory - at the expense of those who > don't want it, of course. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ca at cafonso.ca Wed Feb 24 04:15:06 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:15:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] REVISION 5 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <802A7A97-3C2B-4251-9C3D-FF797C8292D0@ciroap.org>, <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCD@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <3C5D53D9-9F29-4F44-8584-7D2BA6F8C488@cafonso.ca> Looks ok to me as well. --c.a. enviado via iPhone On 24/02/2010, at 00:44, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > This looks fine, Jeremy. > A very minor issue: please refer to "Sharm" as Sharm-el Sheik, Egypt. > > ------- > On 23 February 2010 05:37, Jeremy Malcolm >> wrote: > I am planning to open a 48 hours consensus call on this (or > something very like it) later in the week. At this point, most of > the changes being suggested seem to be just changing the order or > emphasis of points on which we are already agreed. I am omitting > the address and such from the top of the letter, but they will be > included when it is sent. Also to avoid doubt, the subject line of > this thread will not be part of our message to the UNSG. > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED > NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Your Excellency, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates you > on the completion and imminent delivery of your report and > recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the > Internet Governance Forum (IGF), based on formal consultations at > IGF Sharm. > > We request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, > and in accordance with established practice, these recommendations > be made available to the annual session of the Committee on Science > and Technology for Development (CSTD) in May 2010. > > Our request is in line with the views expressed by several > government delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in > February 2010, to the effect that your report and recommendations > should be presented to the CSTD before being considered by the > ECOSOC and then by the UN Assembly. > > The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of WSIS > follow up, and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement > with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for > an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN > Assembly. > > The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder > involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its > "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder > approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions > 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. > > We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced > cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by > the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration. This suggests > that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS > follow up before it considers them. > > Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we > therefore believe that your report and recommendations should be > presented to the CSTD to enable widest possible discussion > and engagement of all actors with this very important issue. > > Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your > leadership, and for your ongoing support of civil society's > participation at the Internet Governance Forum. > > -- > 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 > > > > -- > “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir Wi > lliam 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 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Feb 24 04:29:42 2010 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Kleinw=E4chter=2C_Wolfgang=22?=) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:29:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] ITU Report References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <2DA93620FC07494C926D60C8E3C2F1A8A06914@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de> FYI http://www.itu.int/newsroom/press_releases/2010/pdf/PR08_ExecSum.pdf Wolfgang ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Wed Feb 24 05:01:39 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:01:39 +0800 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL on statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD Message-ID: <1C946E2B-5FDB-4D04-BE05-66E4548E44E9@ciroap.org> Below is the final statement on which a 48 hour consensus call is now being made. Rather than replying with YES or NO here, please wait to receive a personalised email containing a code that allows you to respond using a Web-based survey form. If you do not receive this email within 2 hours from now, please check with me off-list. The online survey link has been sent to all current members of this list. I realise that some members of this list are subscribed more than once. I would ask them to respond only once, because responses will be publicly archived and it will be apparent if more than one response has been given per person. If you have comments beyond a YES or NO, then you may post them to this list as usual. The use of an online survey form is simply to cut down on the unwanted (for some) list traffic that a consensus call causes. Thanks for your participation! AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON Your Excellency, The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates you on the completion and imminent delivery of your report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), based on formal consultations at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. We request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, and in accordance with established practice, these recommendations be made available to the annual session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in May 2010. Our request is in line with the views expressed by several government delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in February 2010, to the effect that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD before being considered by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and then by the UN Assembly. The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of follow up from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration. This suggests that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we therefore believe that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD to enable widest possible discussion and engagement of all actors with this very important issue. Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your leadership, and for your ongoing support of civil society's participation at the Internet Governance Forum. -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From tapani.tarvainen at effi.org Wed Feb 24 05:27:38 2010 From: tapani.tarvainen at effi.org (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:27:38 +0200 Subject: [governance] Email Portability Approved by Knesset Committee In-Reply-To: References: <12DC1BCE-942E-4662-9126-9FC2C5806B50@anime.org> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <20100224064121.GA15353@musti.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20100224102738.GA25548@hamsu.tarvainen.info> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:15:17PM +0530, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy (isolatedn at gmail. > While you suggest a Domain /subdomain-name for every ISP's customers, > independent owners of domain names land up in email continuity > issues, BECAUSE OF their domain ownership, at times when they fail to renew > their domain names. That would be much less problematic if the domain registration was handled automatically by the ISP they obtain their email &c from. Indeed the legislation proposal sounds like it'd make it ISP's duty to take care of it (in case of email), just like phone operators take care of phone numbers (where the problem also exists in principle, but is very rare in practice). In case of subdomains under the ISP's (or a common domain holding organization) the problem would be almost nonexistent, as far as I can see. -- Tapani Tarvainen ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Wed Feb 24 05:50:22 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:50:22 +0000 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> Second, We > need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for > good governance and appropriate institutions; I don't understand why. MS is at best a > transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental > toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this > progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is > - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the > artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, > business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual > that matters. I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. jeanette jea In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is > used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow > does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but > not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. > > ________________________________________ From: Parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM > To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy > Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] > REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > Jeanette and Bertrand, > > First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open > consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed > countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have > forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal > point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am > sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be > because of this procedural part. > > However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my > 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned > interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but > the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can > hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. > Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper > analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are > interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder > nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them > 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, > and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in > this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not > have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? > Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And > why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement > friendly and not developed countries? > > Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, > therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand > that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities > for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control > over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with > stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global > domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is > little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great > advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off > excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping > the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing > countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political > domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls > within their own territories. > > Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many > developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive > role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy > regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place > holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering > the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community > supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society > (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also > have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of > IGF, with no consideration to the fact that > > 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy > making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to > which it does so. > > 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make > recommendations where necessary. > > I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following > assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive > issue in the email. > >> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the >> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly >> revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get >> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and >> operational organization of the Forum. > >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >> more than the Yes or >No question. > > Section 74 of TA reads > > "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options > for the convening of the Forum ..........' > > and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized > structure that would be subject to periodic review". > > Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate > the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational > organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. > > In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it > closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds > (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, > some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more > effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is > made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). > > I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to > get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable > the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there > is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review > debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is > needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and > sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive > changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in > fact, into the oblivion. > > Parminder > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, > > Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking > of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a > different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up > to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report > give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not > that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some > governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more > vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening > MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations > really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first > assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the > proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is > all. > > I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of > discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in > Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. > > The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet > Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, > which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of > the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments > only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important > role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been > organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process > (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions > "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of > the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation > Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the > administrative and operational organization of the Forum. > > In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General > assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss > more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, > which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, > because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only > the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for > ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the > possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how > to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental > multi-stakehoder nature. > > The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to > preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > > Best > > Bertrand > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour > la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information > Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French > Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting > humans") ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 24 07:38:10 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:38:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph : MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with). However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests. In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best Bertrand PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > Second, We > >> need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for >> good governance and appropriate institutions; >> > > I don't understand why. > > > MS is at best a > >> transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental >> toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this >> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is >> - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the >> artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, >> business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual >> that matters. >> > > I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. > Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not > necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here > concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put > it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective > dimensions of it. > The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing > this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up > and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with > each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political > rule-making to me. > jeanette > > jea > > In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > >> the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is >> used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow >> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but >> not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. >> >> ________________________________________ From: Parminder >> [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: >> Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy >> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] >> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >> >> Jeanette and Bertrand, >> >> First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed >> countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have >> forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal >> point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am >> sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be >> because of this procedural part. >> >> However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my >> 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned >> interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but >> the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can >> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. >> Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper >> analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >> interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder >> nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them >> 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, >> and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in >> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not >> have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? >> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And >> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement >> friendly and not developed countries? >> >> Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, >> therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand >> that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities >> for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control >> over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with >> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >> domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is >> little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great >> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off >> excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping >> the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing >> countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political >> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls >> within their own territories. >> >> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >> developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive >> role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy >> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place >> holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering >> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community >> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society >> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also >> have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of >> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that >> >> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy >> making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to >> which it does so. >> >> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make >> recommendations where necessary. >> >> I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following >> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive >> issue in the email. >> >> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the >>> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly >>> revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get >>> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and >>> operational organization of the Forum. >>> >> >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >>> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >>> more than the Yes or >No question. >>> >> >> Section 74 of TA reads >> >> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options >> for the convening of the Forum ..........' >> >> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized >> structure that would be subject to periodic review". >> >> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate >> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational >> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. >> >> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it >> closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds >> (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, >> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more >> effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is >> made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). >> >> I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to >> get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable >> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there >> is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review >> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is >> needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >> sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive >> changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in >> fact, into the oblivion. >> >> Parminder >> >> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, >> >> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking >> of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >> different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up >> to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report >> give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not >> that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >> governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more >> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening >> MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations >> really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first >> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the >> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is >> all. >> >> I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of >> discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in >> Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. >> >> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >> Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, >> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of >> the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments >> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important >> role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been >> organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions >> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of >> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation >> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >> administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >> >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >> more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, >> which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, >> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only >> the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for >> ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the >> possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how >> to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >> multi-stakehoder nature. >> >> The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to >> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour >> la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information >> Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French >> Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting >> humans") ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 24 09:25:46 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:25:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Consensus Call on Statement for inclusion Message-ID: <925853.50112.qm@web83901.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I vote YES to the statement to his excellent General.*   I like the Consensus Call being on the list yes or no with comments. I do not like back room surveys.     *or is that Most excellent Secretary?  Either way seems silly. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 24 09:35:13 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:35:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <320550.38448.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Sometimes taking and usurping the natural and general use of a word and creating labels of classes is a very bad thing. For longer than otherwise "person" did not include slave or lady. The use of "stakeholder" is definately meant to create a group class distinction.   But what do I know - the world changes: Yahoo translated today English to Spanish - Shoeshine boy to this -- Pronounced: leem-pee-ah-bóh-tahs Type: noun Example: Los limpiabotas casi han desaparecido de la vida moderna. Translation: Shoeshine boys have almost disappeared fro...:::: I promise you limpia is not shine and botas is not shoe. So maybe today a "Stakeholder" is only a member of an elite class of people and definately not users or dotcommoners.  --- On Wed, 2/24/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: From: Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" Cc: "Milton L Mueller" , "Parminder" , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 12:38 PM Dear all, Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion.  "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too.  The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph  : MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters.  Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with).  However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation.  Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests.  In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.    This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place.  I hope this helps move the discussion forward.  Best Bertrand PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis.    On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:  Second, We need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for good governance and appropriate institutions; I don't understand why. MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. jeanette jea In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Jeanette and Bertrand, First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this procedural part. However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my 'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement friendly and  not developed countries? Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls within their own territories. Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of IGF, with no consideration to the fact that 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to which it does so. 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make recommendations where necessary. I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email. para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or >No question. Section 74 of TA reads "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum ..........' and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review". Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into the oblivion. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature. The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 24 09:40:11 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:40:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7478.86170.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Thank you for you excellent framing;   Are we this far apart?   Networks are neutral combinations or machines that perform an on off function without quality values.   Networks are groups of tools used by groups of people to accomplish a goal   If they are yours, the first one I agree with you. If they are mine, the second, I disagree with you.   If they are neither but a combination of both then I am right, they have no business being called neutral. --- On Tue, 2/23/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Subject: Re: [governance] Brazilian Internet Principles To: "Eric Dierker" Cc: "Andrés Piazza" , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 6:09 PM Hello Eric Dierker If the network is 'stupid' and remains so, it can not possibly be conducting illegal activity and it wouldn't be right to hold it responsible. Your observation would become relevant if the networks become 'intelligent' by commercial design as desired by the telecommunication business union, or by narrow Governments who believe in network surveillance. It is a complex situation. If legal provisions are created to make the networks accountable, the networks would be forced to build in the 'intelligence' required to discriminate, which would accord the capability for the networks to indulge in undesirable activities, as an unintended consequence. But in a climate of policies favorable to network neutrality, "network immunity" becomes a relevant concept. At least it merits an open debate.  Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Eric Dierker wrote: Gentlefolks,   This is very good work in my always, trying to be, but never humble opinion.  There is a serious legalize type flaw however. The problem is in the sentenced I bolded. This language creates a bit more than even a presumption of innocence beyond question regarding Networks.  Through the eyes of a judge this language may even suggest that a Network cannot legally be conducting illicit activity. Clearly what is desired here is to prevent attack on a Network without cause to believe they have actually done anything wrong. The language presents itself as saying the Networks are always neutral and not saying that an infact neutral network should be held harmless. I do not believe it is your desire to give immunity to Networks but rather to protect innocent neutral networks. --- On Tue, 2/23/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote: Hello Andres Piazza, I posted this at http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/2010/02/inspiration-from-brazil-principles-for.html after making some finer changes from Carlos' text. I have changed the contents of point 7 as below: All actions against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at those directly responsible for such activities (upholding the fundamental principles freedom, privacy and respect for human rights) and not at the network which is a neutral medium of access and transport.  I have changed the sub-topic heading to "Network Impunity".  Does this sound alright and convey the idea? Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy 2010/2/23 Andrés Piazza Glaser, Carlos Afonso, Demi, Raquel, and all the other persons involved in CGI process, I want to congratulate you all for this iniciative. I also put an "spanish translation" in my blog. www.andrespiazza.com if some of you want to make an opinion abuout this version I´ll be glad to receive that and If you want to use it, feel free. Regards, Andrés Piazza 2010/2/10 Sivasubramanian Muthusamy The Brazilian Principles are exemplary.  If this set of principles could inspire the Governments the world over, Internet would remain a free and open medium. The Civil Society in Brazil, or better still, the Internet Steering Committee of Brazil could proactively send this as a model document / reference document to friendly governments. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: Glaser, I have them in simple text. See below. []s frats --c.a. ==== CGI.br Internet Steering Committee in Brazil Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet in Brazil CGI.br/RES/2009/003/P June 2009 http://www.cgi.br rev.June 25 2009 The Internet Steering Committee in Brazil - CGI.br, in its 3rd ordinary meeting of 2009 held in NIC.br headquarters in the city of São Paulo, has approved the following Resolution: CGI.br/Res/2009/03/P - PRINCIPLES FOR THE GOVERNANCE AND USE OF THE INTERNET IN BRAZIL Considering the need of support and orientation for its actions and decisions according to fundamental principles, the CGI.br decides to approve the following Principles for the Internet in Brazil: 1.      Freedom, privacy and human rights The use of the Internet must be driven by the principles of freedom of expression, individual privacy and the respect for human rights, recognizing them as essential to the preservation of a fair and democratic society. 2.      Democratic and collaborative governance Internet governance must be exercised in a transparent, multilateral and democratic manner, with the participation of the various  sectors of society, thereby preserving and encouraging its character as a collective creation. 3.      Universality Internet access must be universal so that it becomes a tool for human and social development, thereby contributing to the formation of an inclusive and nondiscriminatory society for the benefit of all. 4.      Diversity Cultural diversity must be respected and preserved and its expression must be stimulated, without the imposition of beliefs, customs or values. 5.      Innovation Internet governance must promote the continuous development and widespread dissemination of new technologies and models for access and use. 6.      Network neutrality Filtering or traffic privileges must meet ethical and technical criteria only, excluding any political, commercial, religious and cultural factors or any other form of discrimination or preferential treatment. 7.      Network unaccountability All action taken against illicit activity on the network must be aimed at those directly responsible for such activities, and not at the means of access and transport, always upholding the fundamental principles of freedom, privacy and the respect for human rights. 8.      Functionality, security and stability Network stability, security and overall functionality must be actively preserved through the adoption of technical measures that are consistent with international standards and encourage the adoption of best practices. 9.      Standardization and interoperability The Internet must be based on open standards that facilitate interoperability and enable all to participate in its development. 10.     Legal and regulatory environments Legal and regulatory environments must preserve the dynamics of the Internet as a space for collaboration. ==== glaser at nic.br wrote: See the brazilian Internet Principles .... ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 10:34:58 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:04:58 +0530 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL on statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <1C946E2B-5FDB-4D04-BE05-66E4548E44E9@ciroap.org> References: <1C946E2B-5FDB-4D04-BE05-66E4548E44E9@ciroap.org> Message-ID: Yes Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Below is the final statement on which a 48 hour consensus call is now being > made. Rather than replying with YES or NO here, please wait to receive a > personalised email containing a code that allows you to respond using a > Web-based survey form. If you do not receive this email within 2 hours from > now, please check with me off-list. > > The online survey link has been sent to all current members of this list. > I realise that some members of this list are subscribed more than once. I > would ask them to respond only once, because responses will be publicly > archived and it will be apparent if more than one response has been given > per person. > > If you have comments beyond a YES or NO, then you may post them to this > list as usual. The use of an online survey form is simply to cut down on > the unwanted (for some) list traffic that a consensus call causes. Thanks > for your participation! > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS > SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Your Excellency, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates you on the > completion and imminent delivery of your report and recommendations on the > desirability of the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), > based on formal consultations at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. > > We request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, and in > accordance with established practice, these recommendations be made > available to the annual session of the Commission on Science and Technology > for Development (CSTD) in May 2010. > > Our request is in line with the views expressed by several government > delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in February 2010, to the > effect that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD > before being considered by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and then > by the UN Assembly. > > The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of follow up from > the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and its specialized > knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, > will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by > the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. > > The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than > its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into > account the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to > ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. > > We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced cooperation" > which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the > CSTD for its prior consideration. This suggests that ECOSOC would normally > prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. > > Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we therefore > believe that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD > to enable widest possible discussion > and engagement of all actors with this very important issue. > > Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your leadership, > and for your ongoing support of civil society's participation at the > Internet Governance Forum. > > -- > > *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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From maxsenges at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 10:48:53 2010 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:48:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for content that users upload" "the Web as we know it will cease to exist" Message-ID: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> Hi IRPlers, FoE coalition & IGClers I believe many of you have heard about the devestating result of the vividown court-case in Italy, but for those who have not please read the Google policy-blog-post . It is important to stress that this is not about Google, but about Freedom of Expression online! Here is a summary: A judge in Milan today convicted three Google executives in a case involving a reprehensible video posted to Google Video that we took down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. The video showed an autistic boy being bullied by several classmates. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. The law in Europe -- as in the U.S. -- specifically *gives hosting providers a safe harbor from liability* so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. These laws are premised on the belief that a notice and takedown regime helps creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and *indeed every social network and any community bulletin board*, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them — every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video — then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear. Below is some additional background on the case. We would of course *welcome any public statements* you might be willing to make today expressing concern about this ruling. It would be great if we could agree to speak up on this matter! Best Max Some more background articles: New York Times story on ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?hp Leslie Harris/CDT op-ed: Italy's Case Against Google is a Bad Moon Rising http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-harris/italys-case-against-googl_b_395634.html Jeff Jarvis: Italy Endangers the Web http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/02/24/italy-endangers-the-web/ UK Member of Parliament Tom Watson: “This is the biggest threat to internet freedom we have seen in Europe. The only people who will support this decision are Silvio Berlusconi and the governments of China and Iran. It effectively breaks the internet in Italy.” http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809508-google-bosses-convicted-over-abuse-video-of-downs-syndrome-boy.do TechCrunch: Can Someone Tell this Italian Judge what YouTube is? http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/02/24/can-someone-tell-this-italian-judge-what-youtube-is/ -- "The future is here. It’s just not widely distributed yet." —William Gibson ........................................................................... Max Senges Berlin www.maxsenges.com Mobile: 01622122755 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Feb 24 11:36:56 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:36:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: 954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com Message-ID: IMO For me the issue is: "multi-stakeholderism"* and the character of their respective "Lobbyists", and upon how those Lobbyist play within modalities, is wherein I find the trouble with multi-stakeholderism, ... the Lobbyists represenation factor. This is where the process(es) of multi-stakeholderism breakdown for the me as an Individual. This is where my ascertains allie with Milton's** ascertains of Individual representation as the Supranational Jurisdiction at the root-base of the governance system, " in a system in favor of Direct Democracy - vs./over - Representative Democracy within its social contract." *** - * [per Bertrand] Includes together the two notions of : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" ** Re: [per Milton, via Bertrand] This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph : MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. *** [per Yehuda] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Feb 24 14:14:57 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:14:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3896@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > I think that is is dangerous and problematic to be abandoning > the goal of Multistakeholder Governance. Once you go back to > the 'individual is the thing', you have played into the > Government position that they are the representatives of the > individuals within their borders. MS is not the goal, it is a means to an end. The idea that govts represent individuals is laughable, when individuals can participate directly and speak for themselves. Which they can in a MS environment. So yes, let's retain both the rhetoric and the reality of MS, but let's not reify it as an end in itself. > Yes, each of the Stakeholders needs to find a democratic > foundation and there has to be a fair and representative > relationship in relation to the governance, an we need to > make sure that we do not limit the number of character of the > stakeholder groups - there may be more the 3/4/5 currently > defined in Internet governance. but blatant > individual-votism will just bring up back to the old notions > that it is the nation state that is the individual's > representative and support those who think Ig is just a > matter of multilateral decision making. I have never before been accused of being an advocate of nation-states. This is a first! ;-) Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Wed Feb 24 14:26:44 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:26:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global > governance. This is just a rhetorical trap that you have fallen into, and has utterly no bearing on my argument. Any collectivity is in the end composed of individual human beings. This does not mean that all governance must take place bilaterally through contract; it does not mean that no individuals need take into account group interests and solidarities. A collective entity can and will create and impose rules or regulations. The issue is what institutional framework permits the individuals who actually live and breathe to create collective governance arrangements and what status do they accord people as participants within and shapers of them. In creating governance arrangements, these groups must respect and express the interests and preferences of the people within them. Any other approach constitutes a form of authoritarianism or mysticism, e.g., "some people are less important than others and don't deserve to be represented or heard;" "collective consciousness;" "racial spirit" or other such nonsense). > Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and > refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. > What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic > "rules for a life in common", as Tell me what it means to speak of "life in common" without reference to the individuals who live and who form groups. I am not interested in reified notions of group consciousness or races or other such ghosts. And tell me how dividing up the world into "governments" (an institutionalized collectivity with guns) "business" (corporate entities based on trade/markets) and "civil society" (which overlaps with both previous categories and has no homogeneity of interest and no guns and no money other than what the first two give it) makes any sense. --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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Feb 24 14:55:20 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:55:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> B: Yes, this is helpful. We agree on a lot. MS does not mean a particular categorization of stakeholder groups, this is an important clarification. And I am glad to see that you understand that individual participation allows the representation of viewpoints and not necessarily of groups of people. We also agree that global public interest is not aggregation of national interests. So fundamentally, we are in agreement on the important issue, which is that the multistakeholder-ization of existing intergovernmental institutions is a step in the direction of new institutions and not an end in itself. I am sorry if I shocked those who have developed a strong rhetorical commitment to the MS-word, but given that MS itself is not a viable model of global governance and does not answer the profound question of what kind of new institutions will supplant the state-based ones, I think we will pay the price, sooner or later, if we don't make that distinction. My emphasis on the individual does not mean that I favor holding nation-state style elections for every internet decision or (God forbid) every policy decision in every sector. Nor do I blieve in a globalized legislature or executive - that is just the transposition of the nation-state model to a level that does not scale. I do believe that democratic forms could be profitably applied in specific contexts, such as e.g. the ICANN Board, but I suspect that a viable system of global governance will minimize its reliance on elections and other forms of collective action and seek to pave the way for coordinated forms of decentralizsation and freedom, while seeking to maintain some kinds of collective accountability and rights protection against abuses. One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and solve all problems. But that it isn't consistent with what we know about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by others. --MM ________________________________ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Dear all, Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph : MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with). However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests. In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best Bertrand PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: Second, We need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for good governance and appropriate institutions; I don't understand why. MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. jeanette jea In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Jeanette and Bertrand, First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this procedural part. However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement friendly and not developed countries? Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls within their own territories. Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of IGF, with no consideration to the fact that 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to which it does so. 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make recommendations where necessary. I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email. para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or >No question. Section 74 of TA reads "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum ..........' and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review". Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into the oblivion. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature. The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 15:28:47 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:58:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Milton, why not just favourably quote Margaret Thatcher's famous tag "there is no such thing as Society" and leave the rest of the rhetorical flourishes aside. MBG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:57 AM To: 'Jeanette Hofmann'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: Parminder; Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] > > I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global > governance. This is just a rhetorical trap that you have fallen into, and has utterly no bearing on my argument. Any collectivity is in the end composed of individual human beings. This does not mean that all governance must take place bilaterally through contract; it does not mean that no individuals need take into account group interests and solidarities. A collective entity can and will create and impose rules or regulations. The issue is what institutional framework permits the individuals who actually live and breathe to create collective governance arrangements and what status do they accord people as participants within and shapers of them. In creating governance arrangements, these groups must respect and express the interests and preferences of the people within them. Any other approach constitutes a form of authoritarianism or mysticism, e.g., "some people are less important than others and don't deserve to be represented or heard;" "collective consciousness;" "racial spirit" or other such nonsense). > Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and > refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What > we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in > common", as Tell me what it means to speak of "life in common" without reference to the individuals who live and who form groups. I am not interested in reified notions of group consciousness or races or other such ghosts. And tell me how dividing up the world into "governments" (an institutionalized collectivity with guns) "business" (corporate entities based on trade/markets) and "civil society" (which overlaps with both previous categories and has no homogeneity of interest and no guns and no money other than what the first two give it) makes any sense. --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= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Feb 24 15:58:17 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:58:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Message-ID: <451300.25215.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear(s) The discussion started to define the definition of the type of Multi-Stakeholder as a member of IGF/MAG or IGC will remain open ended (because it is going off the track). However, it may have a positive resolution of discussion, if the proposal also have positive impact on the framework of IGF by coming on the right track. Let me explain (how it can) in a seperate discussion thread as "Proposed Framework". Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah On Wed Feb 24th, 2010 7:35 PM PKT Eric Dierker wrote: >Sometimes taking and usurping the natural and general use of a word and creating labels of classes is a very bad thing. For longer than otherwise "person" did not include slave or lady. The use of "stakeholder" is definately meant to create a group class distinction. >  >But what do I know - the world changes: Yahoo translated today English to Spanish - Shoeshine boy to this -- >Pronounced: leem-pee-ah-bóh-tahs Type: noun Example: Los limpiabotas casi han desaparecido de la vida moderna. Translation: Shoeshine boys have almost disappeared fro...:::: I promise you limpia is not shine and botas is not shoe. >So maybe today a "Stakeholder" is only a member of an elite class of people and definately not users or dotcommoners.  > >--- On Wed, 2/24/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > >From: Bertrand de La Chapelle >Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" >Cc: "Milton L Mueller" , "Parminder" , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 12:38 PM > > >Dear all, > > >Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. > > >"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion.  > > >"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too.  > > >The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account > in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . > > >This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph  : >MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters.  > > >Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with).  > > >However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. > > >This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs > and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation.  Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests.  > > >In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.    > > >This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place.  > > >I hope this helps move the discussion forward.  > > >Best > > >Bertrand > > >PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. >   > > >On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > Second, We > >need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for >good governance and appropriate institutions; > >I don't understand why. > > >MS is at best a > >transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental >toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this >progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is >- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the >artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, >business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual >that matters. > >I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. >The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. >jeanette > >jea > > > >In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > > > > >the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is >used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow >does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but >not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. > >________________________________________ From: Parminder >[parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy >Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] >REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > >Jeanette and Bertrand, > >First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed >countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have >forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal >point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am >sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be >because of this procedural part. > >However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my >'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned >interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but >the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can >hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. >Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper >analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder >nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them >'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, >and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in >this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not >have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? >Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And >why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement >friendly and  not developed countries? > >Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, >therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand >that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities >for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control >over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with >stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is >little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great >advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off >excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping >the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing >countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political >domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls >within their own territories. > >Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive >role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy >regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place >holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering >the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community >supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society >(dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also >have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of >IGF, with no consideration to the fact that > >1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy >making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to >which it does so. > >2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make >recommendations where necessary. > >I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following >assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive >issue in the email. > > >para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the >continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly >revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get >into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and >operational organization of the Forum. > > >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >more than the Yes or >No question. > >Section 74 of TA reads > >"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options >for the convening of the Forum ..........' > >and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized >structure that would be subject to periodic review". > >Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate >the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational >organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. > >In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it >closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds >(things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, >some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more >effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is >made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). > >I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to >get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable >the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there >is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review >debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is >needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive >changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in >fact, into the oblivion. > >Parminder > > >Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, > >Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking >of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up >to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report >give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not >that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more >vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening >MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations >really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first >assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the >proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is >all. > >I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of >discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in >Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. > >The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, >which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of >the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments >only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important >role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been >organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions >"the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of >the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation >Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >administrative and operational organization of the Forum. > >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, >which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, >because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only >the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for >ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the >possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how >to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >multi-stakehoder nature. > >The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to >preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > >Best > >Bertrand > >-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour >la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information >Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French >Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting >humans") ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >   governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle >Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society >Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > >-----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Wed Feb 24 15:59:16 2010 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:59:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRP] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for contentthat users upload" "the Web as we know it will cease to exist" In-Reply-To: <004001cab588$dc0400b0$940c0210$@on.net> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> <004001cab588$dc0400b0$940c0210$@on.net> Message-ID: <20100224205916.GA14331@digitalpolicy.it> Don, all, On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 06:37:51AM +1100, Don Cameron wrote: > I would need to read the court transcripts before venturing an opinion on > this - Google is notorious for privacy invasive practice and it certainly > wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibly to suspect that Google execs had > knowledge of this criminally neglect video, yet failed to act until notified > by Police. > > A blog post on GooglePublicPolicy is probably not the best reference - Is > the court transcript available? What is available at the moment is just the decision, not the motivation, which should be made public in maximum 30 days. Indeed, it is surprising to read already so many comments on a decision whose rationale is unknown. Best, -- Andrea Glorioso (M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133) * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali * * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal * "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 24 16:04:27 2010 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:04:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRP] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for contentthat users upload" "the Web as we know it will cease to exist" In-Reply-To: <20100224205916.GA14331@digitalpolicy.it> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> <004001cab588$dc0400b0$940c0210$@on.net> <20100224205916.GA14331@digitalpolicy.it> Message-ID: Hi Andrea, I thought that the problem about the video isn't new, no? Rafik 2010/2/25 Andrea Glorioso > Don, all, > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 06:37:51AM +1100, Don Cameron wrote: > > I would need to read the court transcripts before venturing an opinion on > > this - Google is notorious for privacy invasive practice and it certainly > > wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibly to suspect that Google execs had > > knowledge of this criminally neglect video, yet failed to act until > notified > > by Police. > > > > A blog post on GooglePublicPolicy is probably not the best reference - Is > > the court transcript available? > > What is available at the moment is just the decision, not the motivation, > which should be made public in maximum 30 days. > > Indeed, it is surprising to read already so many comments on a decision > whose rationale is unknown. > > Best, > > -- > Andrea Glorioso (M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133) > * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali * > * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal * > > "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the > people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will > secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost > protection. They are rules proscribed by > Philip sober to control Philip drunk." > David J. Brewer (1893) > An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/listinfo.cgi/irp-internetrightsandprinciples.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Wed Feb 24 16:14:37 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 13:14:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Proposed Framework Message-ID: <393807.24346.qm@web33003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear IGC and UN/IGF Members, I think the discussion started on the other thread "to define the definition of the type of Multi-Stakeholder as a member of IGF/MAG or IGC" will remain open ended (because it is going off the track). However, it may have a positive resolution, only when the discussion ends with a proposal which have any positive impact on the framework of IGF (by coming on the right track). Let me explain that how it can be. We are going out of track when we discuss about the definition of Stake holders, Multi-Stake Holders or try to find out their stakes if they belongs to internet governance. (e.g. discussing that how ILO has multiple groups and multiple stakes. Right, rather then this, (the discussion should bring) right on the track by defining that does IGF membership includes the participation from Multiple types of the Stakes Holders? If not, how this can become possible? I think the IGF needs re-construction of its framework. (As I also have proposed during last survey). IGF of United Nations should have at least following three Groups (instead of single MAG):- 1. First Group: Representation of Governments of all Member Countries/Territories of the United Nations. They will act like Force Implementation of the UN/IGF Policies, rules and regulations (in their countries) and to arrange to provide Funds requred for Implementation (+ICT Policies). 2. Second Group: Representations of Technology Experts and Policy Implementer(s) from the Commercial and Non-Commercial Organizations, Institutions, Groups or Societies. They will not only help to prepare best policies but also extend the policies and implementation process in the community up to the end user (public: citizen or netizen). 3. Third Group: Representatives of Public, Societies, Communities or Individuals as a User where the Policies Implementation will have direct impact. The membership ratio can be 30%+30%+40% respectively. The members of IGC can become part of these groups. These three groups may have: Tree different mailing List + Discussion Forum and One common mailing list and Discussion Forum. These groups will participate for policies development and implementation for Internet Governance. There should be at least three Directors and three coordinators of UN/IGF and permanently based at IGF Office. Membership of these Groups may become open for all when this model is approved by the UNSG. I hope that this proposed framework may resolve many issues and will have a very positive impact on the UN/IGF fundamental theme. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah [ICANNian since Oct'09] [+92 300 4130617] On Thu Feb 25th, 2010 1:58 AM PKT Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: >Dear(s) >The discussion started to define the definition of the type of >Multi-Stakeholder as a member of IGF/MAG or IGC will remain open >ended (because it is going off the track). >However, it may have a positive resolution of discussion, if the proposal also have >positive impact on the framework of IGF by coming on the right track. > >Let me explain (how it can) in a seperate discussion thread as "Proposed Framework". > >Thanks > >Imran Ahmed Shah > >On Wed Feb 24th, 2010 7:35 PM PKT Eric Dierker wrote: > >>Sometimes taking and usurping the natural and general use of a word and creating labels of classes is a very bad thing. For longer than otherwise "person" did not include slave or lady. The use of "stakeholder" is definately meant to create a group class distinction. >>  >>But what do I know - the world changes: Yahoo translated today English to Spanish - Shoeshine boy to this -- >>Pronounced: leem-pee-ah-bóh-tahs Type: noun Example: Los limpiabotas casi han desaparecido de la vida moderna. Translation: Shoeshine boys have almost disappeared fro...:::: I promise you limpia is not shine and botas is not shoe. >>So maybe today a "Stakeholder" is only a member of an elite class of people and definately not users or dotcommoners.  >> >>--- On Wed, 2/24/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> >> >>From: Bertrand de La Chapelle >>Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand >>To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" >>Cc: "Milton L Mueller" , "Parminder" , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >>Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 12:38 PM >> >> >>Dear all, >> >> >>Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. >> >> >>"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion.  >> >> >>"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too.  >> >> >>The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account >> in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . >> >> >>This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph  : >>MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters.  >> >> >>Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with).  >> >> >>However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. >> >> >>This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs >> and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation.  Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests.  >> >> >>In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.    >> >> >>This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place.  >> >> >>I hope this helps move the discussion forward.  >> >> >>Best >> >> >>Bertrand >> >> >>PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. >>   >> >> >>On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Second, We >> >>need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for >>good governance and appropriate institutions; >> >>I don't understand why. >> >> >>MS is at best a >> >>transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental >>toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this >>progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is >>- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the >>artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, >>business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual >>that matters. >> >>I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. >>The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. >>jeanette >> >>jea >> >> >> >>In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers >> >> >> >> >>the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is >>used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow >>does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but >>not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. >> >>________________________________________ From: Parminder >>[parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy >>Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] >>REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >> >>Jeanette and Bertrand, >> >>First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >>consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed >>countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have >>forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal >>point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am >>sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be >>because of this procedural part. >> >>However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my >>'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned >>interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but >>the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can >>hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. >>Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper >>analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >>interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder >>nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them >>'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, >>and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in >>this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not >>have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? >>Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And >>why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement >>friendly and  not developed countries? >> >>Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, >>therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand >>that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities >>for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control >>over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with >>stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >>domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is >>little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great >>advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off >>excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping >>the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing >>countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political >>domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls >>within their own territories. >> >>Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >>developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive >>role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy >>regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place >>holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering >>the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community >>supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society >>(dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also >>have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of >>IGF, with no consideration to the fact that >> >>1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy >>making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to >>which it does so. >> >>2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make >>recommendations where necessary. >> >>I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following >>assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive >>issue in the email. >> >> >>para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the >>continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly >>revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get >>into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and >>operational organization of the Forum. >> >> >>In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >>assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >>more than the Yes or >No question. >> >>Section 74 of TA reads >> >>"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options >>for the convening of the Forum ..........' >> >>and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized >>structure that would be subject to periodic review". >> >>Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate >>the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational >>organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. >> >>In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it >>closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds >>(things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, >>some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more >>effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is >>made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). >> >>I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to >>get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable >>the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there >>is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review >>debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is >>needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >>sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive >>changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in >>fact, into the oblivion. >> >>Parminder >> >> >>Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, >> >>Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking >>of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >>different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up >>to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report >>give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not >>that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >>governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more >>vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening >>MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations >>really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first >>assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the >>proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is >>all. >> >>I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of >>discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in >>Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. >> >>The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >>Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, >>which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of >>the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments >>only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important >>role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been >>organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >>(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions >>"the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of >>the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation >>Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >>administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >> >>In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >>assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >>more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, >>which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, >>because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only >>the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for >>ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the >>possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how >>to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >>multi-stakehoder nature. >> >>The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to >>preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. >> >>Best >> >>Bertrand >> >>-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour >>la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information >>Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French >>Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >>Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting >>humans") ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >>message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>   governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >>   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >>-- >>____________________ >>Bertrand de La Chapelle >>Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society >>Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs >>Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >>"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >>("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> >>-----Inline Attachment Follows----- >> >> >>____________________________________________________________ >>You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>     governance at lists.cpsr.org >>To be removed from the list, send any message to: >>     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >>For all list information and functions, see: >>     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Wed Feb 24 16:42:38 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:42:38 +0000 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B859D4E.10102@wzb.eu> My spontaneous reaction was the same as Michael's but here is a slightly more elaborate one: There are different traditions of understanding modern societies. Milton probably believes the ideas of John Stuart Mill and assumes that everyone who doesn't lives in a "rhetorical trap". Yet there are different traditions as well; Durkheim considering solidarity, Tocqueville considering conditions and implications of democracy, Weber worrying about the dominance of rationality etc, etc. None of these latter traditions start out with the individual, they build on a collective notion of society and modern life. Both schools are still around, and probably many flavors in between. Both are legitimate, and it is worth discussing - and fighting - the political implications of each. Illegitimate I find only those contributions which deny that there is more than one way to understand or strive for global rule-making. jeanette michael gurstein wrote: > Milton, why not just favourably quote Margaret Thatcher's famous tag "there > is no such thing as Society" and leave the rest of the rhetorical flourishes > aside. > > MBG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 12:57 AM > To: 'Jeanette Hofmann'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: Parminder; Bertrand de La Chapelle > Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >> >> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global >> governance. > > This is just a rhetorical trap that you have fallen into, and has utterly no > bearing on my argument. Any collectivity is in the end composed of > individual human beings. This does not mean that all governance must take > place bilaterally through contract; it does not mean that no individuals > need take into account group interests and solidarities. A collective entity > can and will create and impose rules or regulations. The issue is what > institutional framework permits the individuals who actually live and > breathe to create collective governance arrangements and what status do they > accord people as participants within and shapers of them. In creating > governance arrangements, these groups must respect and express the interests > and preferences of the people within them. Any other approach constitutes a > form of authoritarianism or mysticism, e.g., "some people are less important > than others and don't deserve to be represented or heard;" "collective > consciousness;" "racial spirit" or other such nonsense). > >> Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and >> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What >> we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in >> common", as > > Tell me what it means to speak of "life in common" without reference to the > individuals who live and who form groups. I am not interested in reified > notions of group consciousness or races or other such ghosts. > > And tell me how dividing up the world into "governments" (an > institutionalized collectivity with guns) "business" (corporate entities > based on trade/markets) and "civil society" (which overlaps with both > previous categories and has no homogeneity of interest and no guns and no > money other than what the first two give it) makes any sense. > > --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= > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 24 17:17:01 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:17:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B859D4E.10102@wzb.eu> References: <4B859D4E.10102@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <954259bd1002241417j59e087eeh52c34408b73277c0@mail.gmail.com> The philosopher famously says : "there are two categories of people in this world : those who believe that there are two categories of people and those who don't" :-) On an even lighter note : There are three categories of people in the world : those who now how to count and those who don't ! But I digress .... Best Bertrand On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > My spontaneous reaction was the same as Michael's but here is a slightly > more elaborate one: > > There are different traditions of understanding modern societies. Milton > probably believes the ideas of John Stuart Mill and assumes that everyone > who doesn't lives in a "rhetorical trap". Yet there are different traditions > as well; Durkheim considering solidarity, Tocqueville considering conditions > and implications of democracy, Weber worrying about the dominance of > rationality etc, etc. None of these latter traditions start out with the > individual, they build on a collective notion of society and modern life. > Both schools are still around, and probably many flavors in between. Both > are legitimate, and it is worth discussing - and fighting - the political > implications of each. Illegitimate I find only those contributions which > deny that there is more than one way to understand or strive for global > rule-making. > > jeanette > > > michael gurstein wrote: > >> Milton, why not just favourably quote Margaret Thatcher's famous tag >> "there >> is no such thing as Society" and leave the rest of the rhetorical >> flourishes >> aside. >> >> MBG >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, February >> 25, 2010 12:57 AM >> To: 'Jeanette Hofmann'; governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Cc: Parminder; Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wzb.eu] >>> >>> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global >>> governance. >>> >> >> This is just a rhetorical trap that you have fallen into, and has utterly >> no >> bearing on my argument. Any collectivity is in the end composed of >> individual human beings. This does not mean that all governance must take >> place bilaterally through contract; it does not mean that no individuals >> need take into account group interests and solidarities. A collective >> entity >> can and will create and impose rules or regulations. The issue is what >> institutional framework permits the individuals who actually live and >> breathe to create collective governance arrangements and what status do >> they >> accord people as participants within and shapers of them. In creating >> governance arrangements, these groups must respect and express the >> interests >> and preferences of the people within them. Any other approach constitutes >> a >> form of authoritarianism or mysticism, e.g., "some people are less >> important >> than others and don't deserve to be represented or heard;" "collective >> consciousness;" "racial spirit" or other such nonsense). >> >>> Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and >>> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we >>> are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", >>> as >>> >> >> Tell me what it means to speak of "life in common" without reference to >> the >> individuals who live and who form groups. I am not interested in reified >> notions of group consciousness or races or other such ghosts. >> >> And tell me how dividing up the world into "governments" (an >> institutionalized collectivity with guns) "business" (corporate entities >> based on trade/markets) and "civil society" (which overlaps with both >> previous categories and has no homogeneity of interest and no guns and no >> money other than what the first two give it) makes any sense. >> --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= >> >> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 17:52:33 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:22:33 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Hello Milton On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 1:25 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > B: > Yes, this is helpful. We agree on a lot. MS does not mean a particular > categorization of stakeholder groups, this is an important clarification. > And I am glad to see that you understand that individual participation > allows the representation of viewpoints and not necessarily of groups of > people. We also agree that global public interest is not aggregation of > national interests. > > So fundamentally, we are in agreement on the important issue, which is that > the multistakeholder-ization of existing intergovernmental institutions is a > step in the direction of new institutions and not an end in itself. I am > sorry if I shocked those who have developed a strong rhetorical commitment > to the MS-word, but given that > > MS itself is not a viable model of global governance and does not answer > the profound question of what kind of new institutions will supplant the > state-based ones, > True, but isn't multi-stakeholderism in its very early phase of development? The experiment has just begun and you have already dismissed it for not providing answers to the profound question. It is just born and you are throwing away the baby for not being a match to the grown ups? > I think we will pay the price, sooner or later, if we don't make that > distinction. > > My emphasis on the individual does not mean that I favor holding > nation-state style elections for every internet decision or (God forbid) > every policy decision in every sector. Nor do I blieve in a globalized > legislature or executive - that is just the transposition of the > nation-state model to a level that does not scale. I do believe that > democratic forms could be profitably applied in specific contexts, such as > e.g. the ICANN Board, but I suspect that a viable system of global > governance will minimize its reliance on elections and other forms of > collective action and seek to pave the way for coordinated forms of > decentralizsation and freedom, while seeking to maintain some kinds of > collective accountability and rights protection against abuses. > > One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that > > it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. > Why should the chosen form of governance be 'unlimited' in scope? Why can't multistakeholderism be considered to be somewhere between laissez faire and totalitarianism, possibly in a zone which represents the perfect balance? > It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance > and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. > It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and > solve all problems. > You would discuss Democracy on the same rationale? > But that it isn't consistent with what we know about human nature, and free > expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish a controversial > message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 > billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is > precisely to shield groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by > others. > > --MM > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM > > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > > Dear all, > > Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities > around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be > clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on > this topic. > > "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five > ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : governments, civil > society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this > approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO > (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of > governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective > structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this > way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often > prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and > "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a > broader and more diverse notion. > > "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as > meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie incorporated structures, be > they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding > therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that > this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the > possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder > governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with > its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established > structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and > decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. > > The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision > shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can > represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are > contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific > representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they > really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope > ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so > because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. > The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive > manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake > in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed > country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for > youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken > into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such > communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different > interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and > established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play > here. . > > This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this > context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of > the paragraph : > > MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely > intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. > In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point > is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance > the artificial division of society into "estates" such as > "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the > individual that matters. > > > Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of > global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into > separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is > why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three > "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right > for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate > manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a > stake in (is impacted by or concerned with). > > However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily > meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their > own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe > that the future of global governance is the generalization at the > international level of the kind of representative democracy that already > reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals > of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. > > This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that > individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse > interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes > conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives > carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To > take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country > to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, > and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But > conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a > whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert > some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the > employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important > effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact > their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to > participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is > taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert > participation. Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact > several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A > major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the > mere aggregation of national public interests. > > In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental > representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of > "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to > explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, > collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop > and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in > the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should > vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. > > This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, > issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of > consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and > enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this > discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is > one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory > discussion can actually take place. > > I hope this helps move the discussion forward. > > Best > > Bertrand > > PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> >> >> >> Second, We >> >>> need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for >>> good governance and appropriate institutions; >>> >> >> I don't understand why. >> >> >> MS is at best a >> >>> transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental >>> toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this >>> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is >>> - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the >>> artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, >>> business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual >>> that matters. >>> >> >> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global >> governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at >> least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing >> about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague >> once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective >> dimensions of it. >> The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing >> this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up >> and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with >> each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political >> rule-making to me. >> jeanette >> >> jea >> >> In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers >> >>> the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is >>> used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow >>> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but >>> not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. >>> >>> ________________________________________ From: Parminder >>> [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy >>> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] >>> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >>> >>> Jeanette and Bertrand, >>> >>> First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >>> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed >>> countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have >>> forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal >>> point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am >>> sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be >>> because of this procedural part. >>> >>> However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my >>> 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned >>> interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but >>> the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can >>> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. >>> Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper >>> analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >>> interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder >>> nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them >>> 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, >>> and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in >>> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not >>> have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? >>> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And >>> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement >>> friendly and not developed countries? >>> >>> Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, >>> therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand >>> that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities >>> for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control >>> over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with >>> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >>> domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is >>> little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great >>> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off >>> excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping >>> the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing >>> countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political >>> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls >>> within their own territories. >>> >>> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >>> developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive >>> role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy >>> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place >>> holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering >>> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community >>> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society >>> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also >>> have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of >>> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that >>> >>> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy >>> making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to >>> which it does so. >>> >>> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make >>> recommendations where necessary. >>> >>> I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following >>> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive >>> issue in the email. >>> >>> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the >>>> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly >>>> revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get >>>> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and >>>> operational organization of the Forum. >>>> >>> >>> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >>>> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >>>> more than the Yes or >No question. >>>> >>> >>> Section 74 of TA reads >>> >>> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options >>> for the convening of the Forum ..........' >>> >>> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized >>> structure that would be subject to periodic review". >>> >>> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate >>> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational >>> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. >>> >>> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it >>> closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds >>> (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, >>> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more >>> effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is >>> made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). >>> >>> I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to >>> get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable >>> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there >>> is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review >>> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is >>> needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >>> sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive >>> changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in >>> fact, into the oblivion. >>> >>> Parminder >>> >>> >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, >>> >>> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking >>> of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >>> different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up >>> to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report >>> give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not >>> that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >>> governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more >>> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening >>> MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations >>> really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first >>> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the >>> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is >>> all. >>> >>> I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of >>> discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in >>> Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. >>> >>> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >>> Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, >>> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of >>> the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments >>> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important >>> role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been >>> organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >>> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions >>> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of >>> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation >>> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >>> administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >>> >>> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >>> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >>> more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, >>> which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, >>> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only >>> the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for >>> ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the >>> possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how >>> to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >>> multi-stakehoder nature. >>> >>> The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to >>> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Bertrand >>> >>> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour >>> la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information >>> Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French >>> Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >>> >>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >>> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting >>> humans") ____________________________________________________________ >>> >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >>> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >>> >>> For all list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From isolatedn at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 18:10:29 2010 From: isolatedn at gmail.com (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:40:29 +0530 Subject: [governance] Free and Open Source Software equated with Piracy? Message-ID: Apparently the "International Intellectual Property Alliance, in the US an umbrella group for organisations including the MPAA and RIAA, has requested with the US Trade Representative to consider countries like Indonesia, Brazil and India for its "Special 301 watchlist" because they use open source software." http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/feb/23/opensource-intellectual-property (from the ORG-discuss list) Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Wed Feb 24 20:12:59 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:12:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: 4B859D4E.10102@wzb.eu Message-ID: Worth your time to hear. Vivek Chibber - Capitalism and the State http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8055813613889287102# Vivek Chibber - Capitalism and the State 1:29:15 - 1 year ago Vivek Chibber, Professor of Sociology at New York University, presented this lecture, "Capitalism and the State", as part of a Brecht Forum program at the New York Marxist School. Embed Video: --- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 24 21:08:03 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:38:03 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Since we are discussing basic civics at this point... and up front I agree with Milton on a lot of what he says below... However, for most of the world the fundamental challenge of democratic governance is how to balance the rights of individuals and minorities (and yes majorities) with the over-arching need/responsibility to accomplish significant collectively arrived at social goals/undertakings (let's use the MDG's as our surrogate for this but I'm sure we could develop a rather lengthy list here including dare I say finding a means for managing the global digital platform/communications commons that is the Internet). I completely agree that MS is a (not particularly adequate or effective) transition point in moving from governance strategies and structures which empirically can be seen as not delivering the goods as above at tje nation state level and most certainly don't scale for the kind of globally necessary undertakings that seem to be emerging--of which governance of the Internet is among the least threatening and least complex. Where or how we go from here in responding to those challenges is certainly not clear (to me at least) although the Internet and new communications modalities and opportunities present some interesting glimmers of possible directions for development in this area. I personally see the current experimentation with MS approaches as part of a quite broad based and multi-pronged evolutionary process towards the necessary structures for global governance (my own feeling is that MS represents an interesting dead end in that evolution, but time will tell... MBG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 1:25 AM To: 'Bertrand de La Chapelle'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand B: Yes, this is helpful. We agree on a lot. MS does not mean a particular categorization of stakeholder groups, this is an important clarification. And I am glad to see that you understand that individual participation allows the representation of viewpoints and not necessarily of groups of people. We also agree that global public interest is not aggregation of national interests. So fundamentally, we are in agreement on the important issue, which is that the multistakeholder-ization of existing intergovernmental institutions is a step in the direction of new institutions and not an end in itself. I am sorry if I shocked those who have developed a strong rhetorical commitment to the MS-word, but given that MS itself is not a viable model of global governance and does not answer the profound question of what kind of new institutions will supplant the state-based ones, I think we will pay the price, sooner or later, if we don't make that distinction. My emphasis on the individual does not mean that I favor holding nation-state style elections for every internet decision or (God forbid) every policy decision in every sector. Nor do I blieve in a globalized legislature or executive - that is just the transposition of the nation-state model to a level that does not scale. I do believe that democratic forms could be profitably applied in specific contexts, such as e.g. the ICANN Board, but I suspect that a viable system of global governance will minimize its reliance on elections and other forms of collective action and seek to pave the way for coordinated forms of decentralizsation and freedom, while seeking to maintain some kinds of collective accountability and rights protection against abuses. One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and solve all problems. But that it isn't consistent with what we know about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by others. --MM _____ From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Dear all, Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph : MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with). However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests. In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best Bertrand PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: Second, We need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for good governance and appropriate institutions; I don't understand why. MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. jeanette jea In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Jeanette and Bertrand, First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this procedural part. However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement friendly and not developed countries? Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls within their own territories. Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of IGF, with no consideration to the fact that 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to which it does so. 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make recommendations where necessary. I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email. para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or >No question. Section 74 of TA reads "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum ..........' and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review". Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into the oblivion. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature. The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From fouadbajwa at gmail.com Wed Feb 24 21:19:13 2010 From: fouadbajwa at gmail.com (Fouad Bajwa) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 07:19:13 +0500 Subject: [governance] Choosing logos for IGF2010? Message-ID: <701af9f71002241819g3923da8ft88ab47eeede46ddb@mail.gmail.com> Dear Colleagues, I was recently visiting the IGF2010 Facebook page and saw a IGF2010 Logo selection activity taking place and thought I would share this with you just in case its still under way: http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=112966&id=160245077254&ref=mf Do let me know if it doesn't work and then I will forward an alternate link. -- 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 cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 24 23:29:07 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:29:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Stakeholders in Governance Message-ID: <360717.88616.qm@web83908.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I just read a participants concept of Stakeholder and she had it down as a direct result of the impact the stakeholder had on the Internet Society.   My idea was: The Stake was in direct proportion to the impact the Internet had on the holder.   With either of these concepts the group would in fact have a larger claim to status.  Therefor in my book, Governance would have a higher duty to the individual.   But some guy named JFK said something like: ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country ----  It really does strike a cord with me;;;;  I should not ask what the Internet can do for me, but how I can serve the Internet. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 24 23:32:43 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 20:32:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <899520.12800.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> We should keep in mind that while rights are very important duty is equally so. If we are to set standards of representativeness, then we have a duty to evaluate the makeup of our representatives.  And then be careful to include and speak for those less represented. --- On Wed, 2/24/10, Milton L Mueller wrote: From: Milton L Mueller Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand To: "'Bertrand de La Chapelle'" , "governance at lists.cpsr.org" Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 7:55 PM B: Yes, this is helpful. We agree on a lot. MS does not mean a particular categorization of stakeholder groups, this is an important clarification. And I am glad to see that you understand that individual participation allows the representation of viewpoints and not necessarily of groups of people. We also agree that global public interest is not aggregation of national interests.   So fundamentally, we are in agreement on the important issue, which is that the multistakeholder-ization of existing intergovernmental institutions is a step in the direction of new institutions and not an end in itself. I am sorry if I shocked those who have developed a strong rhetorical commitment to the MS-word, but given that MS itself is not a viable model of global governance and does not answer the profound question of what kind of new institutions will supplant the state-based ones, I think we will pay the price, sooner or later, if we don't make that distinction.   My emphasis on the individual does not mean that I favor holding nation-state style elections for every internet decision or (God forbid) every policy decision in every sector. Nor do I blieve in a globalized legislature or executive - that is just the transposition of the nation-state model to a level that does not scale. I do believe that democratic forms could be profitably applied in specific contexts, such as e.g. the ICANN Board, but I suspect that a viable system of global governance will minimize its reliance on elections and other forms of collective action and seek to pave the way for coordinated forms of decentralizsation and freedom, while seeking to maintain some kinds of collective accountability and rights protection against abuses.    One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and solve all problems. But that it isn't consistent with what we know about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by others.   --MM   From: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Dear all, Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion.  "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too.  The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph  : MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters.  Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with).  However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation.  Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests.  In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.    This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place.  I hope this helps move the discussion forward.  Best Bertrand PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis.    On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:  Second, We need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for good governance and appropriate institutions; I don't understand why. MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. jeanette jea In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Jeanette and Bertrand, First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this procedural part. However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my 'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement friendly and  not developed countries? Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls within their own territories. Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of IGF, with no consideration to the fact that 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to which it does so. 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make recommendations where necessary. I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email. para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or >No question. Section 74 of TA reads "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum ..........' and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review". Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into the oblivion. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature. The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 25 00:23:53 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:53:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL on statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: References: <1C946E2B-5FDB-4D04-BE05-66E4548E44E9@ciroap.org> Message-ID: <4B860969.3090300@itforchange.net> Yes. Separately; while I agree that 30-40 emails with yes no etc suddenly appearing in the inbox may put off some people I also see the advantage on stating one's vote in full view of the list... In any case the charters says that all voting, unless specified with due reason, will be open, and therefore even if done by a survey tool the votes must be finally published. Parminder Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Yes > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Malcolm > wrote: > > Below is the final statement on which a 48 hour consensus call is > now being made. Rather than replying with YES or NO here, please > wait to receive a personalised email containing a code that allows > you to respond using a Web-based survey form. If you do not > receive this email within 2 hours from now, please check with me > off-list. > > The online survey link has been sent to all current members of > this list. I realise that some members of this list are > subscribed more than once. I would ask them to respond only once, > because responses will be publicly archived and it will be > apparent if more than one response has been given per person. > > If you have comments beyond a YES or NO, then you may post them to > this list as usual. The use of an online survey form is simply to > cut down on the unwanted (for some) list traffic that a consensus > call causes. Thanks for your participation! > > AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED > NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON > > Your Excellency, > > The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates > you on the completion and imminent delivery of your report and > recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the > Internet Governance Forum (IGF), based on formal consultations at > the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. > > We request that in the interest of an open and transparent > process, and in accordance with established practice, these > recommendations be made available to the annual session of the > Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in May > 2010. > > Our request is in line with the views expressed by several > government delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in > February 2010, to the effect that your report and recommendations > should be presented to the CSTD before being considered by the > Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and then by the UN Assembly. > > The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of follow > up from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and > its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS > issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an > informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly. > > The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder > involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its > "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder > approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions > 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. > > We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced > cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred > by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration. This > suggests that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues > of WSIS follow up before it considers them. > > Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we > therefore believe that your report and recommendations should be > presented to the CSTD to enable widest possible discussion > and engagement of all actors with this very important issue. > > Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your > leadership, and for your ongoing support of civil society's > participation at the Internet Governance Forum. > > -- > > *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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Feb 25 00:32:16 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:32:16 +0300 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL on statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B860969.3090300@itforchange.net> References: <1C946E2B-5FDB-4D04-BE05-66E4548E44E9@ciroap.org> <4B860969.3090300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Parminder wrote: > Yes. > > Separately; while I agree that 30-40 emails with yes no etc suddenly > appearing in the inbox may put off some people I also see the advantage on > stating one's vote in full view of the list... > > In any case the charters says that all voting, unless specified with due > reason, will be open, and therefore even if done by a survey tool the votes > must be finally published. right, and the charter also says that our list and our website will be the primary workspaces. voting is reserved for elections IIRC. Making of statements is not subject to voting. Let's nip this in the bud. I am fine with the statement BTW, just not fine with "voting" on it. -- 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 Thu Feb 25 00:37:19 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:37:19 +1100 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL on statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B860969.3090300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: Publish results we should, even with details of who voted which way. But I am personally very glad to see this done with an offlist tool, well done Jeremy, and also well done with the statement which has been an excellent piece of work accommodating varied inputs. I remain impressed with how the consensus process and the varied inputs here can result in really worthwhile documents. Ian Peter From: Parminder Reply-To: , Parminder Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:53:53 +0530 To: Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL on statement to UNSG on bypassing Yes. Separately; while I agree that 30-40 emails with yes no etc suddenly appearing in the inbox may put off some people I also see the advantage on stating one's vote in full view of the list... In any case the charters says that all voting, unless specified with due reason, will be open, and therefore even if done by a survey tool the votes must be finally published. Parminder Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: > Yes > > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > >> >> >> Below is the final statement on which a 48 hour consensus call is now being >> made. Rather than replying with YES or NO here, please wait to receive a >> personalised email containing a code that allows you to respond using a >> Web-based survey form. If you do not receive this email within 2 hours from >> now, please check with me off-list. >> >> >> >> >> The online survey link has been sent to all current members of this list. I >> realise that some members of this list are subscribed more than once. I >> would ask them to respond only once, because responses will be publicly >> archived and it will be apparent if more than one response has been given per >> person. >> >> >> >> >> If you have comments beyond a YES or NO, then you may post them to this list >> as usual. The use of an online survey form is simply to cut down on the >> unwanted (for some) list traffic that a consensus call causes. Thanks for >> your participation! >> >> >> >> >> AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS >> SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON >> >> >> >> Your Excellency, >> >> >> >> The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates you on the >> completion and imminent delivery of your report and recommendations on the >> desirability of the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), >> based on formal consultations at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt. >> >> >> >> We request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, and in >> accordance with established practice, these recommendations be made available >> to the annual session of the Commission on Science and Technology for >> Development (CSTD) in May 2010. >> >> >> >> Our request is in line with the views expressed by several government >> delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in February 2010, to the >> effect that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD >> before being considered by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and then >> by the UN Assembly. >> >> >> >> The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of follow up from the >> World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and its specialized knowledge >> and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide >> the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and >> the UN Assembly. >> >> >> >> The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than >> its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account >> the multistakeholder approach" (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC >> decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218. >> >> >> >> We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced cooperation" >> which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD >> for its prior consideration. This suggests that ECOSOC would normally prefer >> CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them. >> >> >> >> Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we therefore >> believe that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD >> to enable widest possible discussion >> >> and engagement of all actors with this very important issue. >> >> >> >> Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your leadership, and >> for your ongoing support of civil society's participation at the Internet >> Governance Forum. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> 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 >> > nt1stParentNodeID=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 >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeanette at wzb.eu Thu Feb 25 03:14:37 2010 From: jeanette at wzb.eu (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:14:37 +0000 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> Milton L Mueller wrote: > > One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that > it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. > It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global > governance and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. Who does this and where? The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending evaluation of the IGF, not as a panacea per se. > It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree > and solve all problems. Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the implications of a forum without binding decision-making capacity here. But that it isn't consistent with what we know > about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to > be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I should not have > to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of > "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups and > individuals from unwanted "governance" by others. With regard to free expression perhaps although free expression needs rules as well in order to work. Even this list has rules specifying limits of unwanted behavior. jeanette > > --MM > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM > *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > > Dear all, > > Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are > ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" > that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with > Karl Auerbach on this topic. > > "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or > five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : governments, > civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). > According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a > little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the > three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, > each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is > still structured very much in this way, with what I have often > described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real > interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and > "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : > "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. > > "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in > particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie > incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or > NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of > individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to > be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to > participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder > governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful > example with its open registration policy that allows > individuals. Important established structures (governments, > businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making > processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. > > The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the > decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such > individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of > people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required > to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the > classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and > akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with > something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it > informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The > purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive > manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a > stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from > a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the > challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure > that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even > if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, > actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the > decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and > structures may have a specific role to play here. . > > This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In > this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to > the last bit of the paragraph : > > MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely > intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global > governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea > of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of > perfect global governance the artificial division of society > into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" > no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. > > > Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic > form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially > divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their > interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for > the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, > governance should be based on the right for any actor, including > individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the > governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in > (is impacted by or concerned with). > > However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as > necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, > each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. > Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance > is the generalization at the international level of the kind of > representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower > scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President > or even Parliament is not the solution. > > This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that > individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their > diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an > issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its > different perspectives carried forward in international discussions > by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental > issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus > others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore > want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious > of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, > they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert > some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the > employees of companies in an industry that has to support an > important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global > regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or > its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to > ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and > scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On > such global topics, individuals have in fact several > stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A > major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is > not the mere aggregation of national public interests. > > In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including > governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding > of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, > and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders > can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say > "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific > issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective > roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the > issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. > > This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, > issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making > (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, > monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major > laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as > exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main > one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. > > I hope this helps move the discussion forward. > > Best > > Bertrand > > PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > > > > Second, We > > need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our > label for > good governance and appropriate institutions; > > > I don't understand why. > > > MS is at best a > > transitional phase implying a motion from purely > intergovernmental > toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. > In this > progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end > point is > - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the > artificial division of society into "estates" such as > "government, > business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the > individual > that matters. > > > I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global > governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and > refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. > What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules > for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in > common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions > of it. > The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of > capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many > times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who > interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like > an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making > to me. > jeanette > > jea > > In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > > the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how > MS is > used to fend off certain political actors in this context > but somehow > does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about > process but > not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. > > ________________________________________ From: Parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net > ] Sent: Sunday, February > 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; Jeremy > Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: > [governance] > REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > Jeanette and Bertrand, > > First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open > consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of > developed > countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have > forgotten that part from their interventions because there > principal > point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. > And I am > sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that > would be > because of this procedural part. > > However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my > 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned > interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much > motivation but > the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke > about, I can > hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of > motivation'. > Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper > analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are > interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the > multi-stakeholder > nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them > 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political > stage, > and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One > may ask in > this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. > Why not > have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and > negotiations? > Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed > currently? And > why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO > involvement > friendly and not developed countries? > > Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it > ends is, > therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I > understand > that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit > possibilities > for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues > because control > over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along > with > stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global > domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF > which is > little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has > this great > advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - > letting off > excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation > in shaping > the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately > developing > countries mostly have not woken up to the global > eco-socio-political > domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist > controls > within their own territories. > > Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many > developing countries want the IGF to have more > substantive > role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet > policy > regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the > place > holder. Developed countries seem not interested in > furthering > the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community > supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil > society > (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter > two also > have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, > nature of > IGF, with no consideration to the fact that > > 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global > Internet policy > making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the > extent to > which it does so. > > 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF > to make > recommendations where necessary. > > I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the > following > assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive > issue in the email. > > para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability > of the > continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG > should mainly > revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? > and not get > into any renegotiation of the mandate or the > administrative and > operational organization of the Forum. > > > In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN > General > assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) > to discuss > more than the Yes or >No question. > > > Section 74 of TA reads > > "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of > options > for the convening of the Forum ..........' > > and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized > structure that would be subject to periodic review". > > Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not > renegotiate > the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational > organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and > change. > > In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes > (taking it > closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds > (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused > agenda, > some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more > effective connections to forums where substantive Internet > policy is > made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). > > I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not > able to > get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed > to enable > the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really > effective, there > is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF > review > debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' > than is > needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and > sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive > changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the > background, in > fact, into the oblivion. > > Parminder > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, > > Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not > thinking > of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a > different politics. They suspect China (along with some > others) is up > to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's > report > give them a better chance to put their views in more > solidly, not > that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some > governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously > are more > vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since > weakening > MS process was not what the government who spoke at the > consultations > really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, > our first > assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke > about the > proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, > that is > all. > > I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of > discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who > spoke in > Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. > > The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet > Governance forum came principally from the discussions of > the WGIG, > which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the > mandate of > the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by > governments > only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an > important > role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself > has been > organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process > (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda > mentions > "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the > recommendations of > the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : > continuation > Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the > mandate or the > administrative and operational organization of the Forum. > > In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General > assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to > discuss > more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, > which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. > The CSTD, > because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is > not only > the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for > ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the > possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of > actors on how > to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental > multi-stakehoder nature. > > The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to > preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > > Best > > Bertrand > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué > Spécial pour > la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information > Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French > Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 > 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" > Antoine de > Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than > uniting > humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From andrea at digitalpolicy.it Thu Feb 25 04:52:50 2010 From: andrea at digitalpolicy.it (Andrea Glorioso) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:52:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Re: [IRP] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for content that users upload" "the Web as we know it will cease to exist" In-Reply-To: (Rafik Dammak's message of "Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:04:27 +0900") References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> <004001cab588$dc0400b0$940c0210$@on.net> <20100224205916.GA14331@digitalpolicy.it> Message-ID: <87zl2x1w25.fsf@digitalpolicy.it> Dear Rafik, >>>>> "rafik" == Rafik Dammak writes: > Hi Andrea, I thought that the problem about the video isn't new, > no? Sorry, I didn't understand what you mean. Ciao, -- Andrea Glorioso (M: +32-488-409-055 F: +39-051-930-31-133) * Le opinioni espresse in questa mail sono del tutto personali * * The opinions expressed here are absolutely personal * "Constitutions represent the deliberate judgment of the people as to the provisions and restraints which [...] will secure to each citizen the greatest liberty and utmost protection. They are rules proscribed by Philip sober to control Philip drunk." David J. Brewer (1893) An Independent Judiciary as the Salvation of the Nation -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 196 bytes Desc: not available URL: From f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Thu Feb 25 05:33:02 2010 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:33:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] GOOGLE and italian judgement Message-ID: Waiting for the motivation I think that the question of "privacy" needs to be defined in a self-regulatory code made by a multistakeholders process. European directive on electronic commerce has explicitly called on member states to do this but until now the Italian government has not done anything and the risk that we run is that the policy is replaced by the Courts' judgments. ciao Fiorello ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 25 05:34:04 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:34:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> Message-ID: hi, I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of possible panaceas, for those are but classes of snake oil that are meant to cure all ills. And Multistakeholder governance (MSG - i think of MS as multiple sclerosis) does not belong in the category. I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself and as a stage in the evolving development of governance systems. It represents progress over the nation-state, bi and multi-lateral modalities. It also moves us beyond the pure top down or pure bottom up models. In its best form it allows for persons, both natural and otherwise, to form into self regulated interest and affinity groupings and allows them, as members of these groups, and with their individual voices, to participate as peers in the critical governance activities, including talk, capacity building, action, regulation and enforcement. I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes this important stage in governance development. I worry mostly that this diminution plays into the hands of those who want to remain in, and bolster the legitimacy of, the older variants of the Westfalian military-industrial sovereign state - whether this is their intention or not. a. On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. > > Who does this and where? > The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending evaluation of the IGF, not as a panacea per se. > >> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and solve all problems. > > Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the implications of a forum without binding decision-making capacity here. > > But that it isn't consistent with what we know >> about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by others. > > With regard to free expression perhaps although free expression needs rules as well in order to work. Even this list has rules specifying limits of unwanted behavior. > > jeanette >> --MM >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand >> Dear all, >> Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are >> ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" >> that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with >> Karl Auerbach on this topic. >> "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or >> five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : governments, >> civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). >> According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a >> little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the >> three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, >> each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is >> still structured very much in this way, with what I have often >> described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real >> interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and >> "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : >> "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in >> particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie >> incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or >> NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of >> individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to >> be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to >> participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder >> governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful >> example with its open registration policy that allows >> individuals. Important established structures (governments, >> businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making >> processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the >> decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such >> individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of >> people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required >> to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the >> classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and >> akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with >> something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it >> informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The >> purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive >> manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a >> stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from >> a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the >> challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure >> that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even >> if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, >> actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the >> decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and >> structures may have a specific role to play here. . >> This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In >> this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to >> the last bit of the paragraph : >> MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely >> intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global >> governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea >> of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of >> perfect global governance the artificial division of society >> into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" >> no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic >> form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially >> divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their >> interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for >> the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, >> governance should be based on the right for any actor, including >> individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the >> governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in >> (is impacted by or concerned with). However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as >> necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, >> each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. >> Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance >> is the generalization at the international level of the kind of >> representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower >> scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President >> or even Parliament is not the solution. >> This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that >> individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their >> diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an >> issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its >> different perspectives carried forward in international discussions >> by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental >> issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus >> others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore >> want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious >> of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, >> they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert >> some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the >> employees of companies in an industry that has to support an >> important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global >> regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or >> its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to >> ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and >> scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On >> such global topics, individuals have in fact several >> stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A >> major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is >> not the mere aggregation of national public interests. In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including >> governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding >> of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, >> and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders >> can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say >> "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific >> issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective >> roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the >> issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, >> issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making >> (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, >> monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major >> laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as >> exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main >> one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best >> Bertrand >> PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: >> Second, We >> need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our >> label for >> good governance and appropriate institutions; >> I don't understand why. >> MS is at best a >> transitional phase implying a motion from purely >> intergovernmental >> toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. >> In this >> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end >> point is >> - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the >> artificial division of society into "estates" such as >> "government, >> business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the >> individual >> that matters. >> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global >> governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and >> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. >> What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules >> for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in >> common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions >> of it. >> The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of >> capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many >> times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who >> interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like >> an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making >> to me. >> jeanette >> jea >> In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers >> the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how >> MS is >> used to fend off certain political actors in this context >> but somehow >> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about >> process but >> not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. >> ________________________________________ From: Parminder >> [parminder at itforchange.net >> ] Sent: Sunday, February >> 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> ; Jeremy >> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: >> [governance] >> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >> Jeanette and Bertrand, >> First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of >> developed >> countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have >> forgotten that part from their interventions because there >> principal >> point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. >> And I am >> sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that >> would be >> because of this procedural part. >> However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my >> 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned >> interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much >> motivation but >> the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke >> about, I can >> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of >> motivation'. >> Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper >> analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >> interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the >> multi-stakeholder >> nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them >> 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political >> stage, >> and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One >> may ask in >> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. >> Why not >> have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and >> negotiations? >> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed >> currently? And >> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO >> involvement >> friendly and not developed countries? >> Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it >> ends is, >> therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I >> understand >> that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit >> possibilities >> for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues >> because control >> over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along >> with >> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >> domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF >> which is >> little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has >> this great >> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - >> letting off >> excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation >> in shaping >> the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately >> developing >> countries mostly have not woken up to the global >> eco-socio-political >> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist >> controls >> within their own territories. >> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >> developing countries want the IGF to have more >> substantive >> role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet >> policy >> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the >> place >> holder. Developed countries seem not interested in >> furthering >> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community >> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil >> society >> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter >> two also >> have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, >> nature of >> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that >> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global >> Internet policy >> making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the >> extent to >> which it does so. >> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF >> to make >> recommendations where necessary. >> I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the >> following >> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive >> issue in the email. >> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability >> of the >> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG >> should mainly >> revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? >> and not get >> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >> administrative and >> operational organization of the Forum. >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN >> General >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) >> to discuss >> more than the Yes or >No question. >> Section 74 of TA reads >> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of >> options >> for the convening of the Forum ..........' >> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized >> structure that would be subject to periodic review". >> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not >> renegotiate >> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational >> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and >> change. >> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes >> (taking it >> closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds >> (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused >> agenda, >> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more >> effective connections to forums where substantive Internet >> policy is >> made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). >> I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not >> able to >> get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed >> to enable >> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really >> effective, there >> is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF >> review >> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' >> than is >> needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >> sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive >> changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the >> background, in >> fact, into the oblivion. >> Parminder >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, >> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not >> thinking >> of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >> different politics. They suspect China (along with some >> others) is up >> to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's >> report >> give them a better chance to put their views in more >> solidly, not >> that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >> governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously >> are more >> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since >> weakening >> MS process was not what the government who spoke at the >> consultations >> really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, >> our first >> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke >> about the >> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, >> that is >> all. >> I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of >> discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who >> spoke in >> Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. >> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >> Governance forum came principally from the discussions of >> the WGIG, >> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the >> mandate of >> the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by >> governments >> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an >> important >> role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself >> has been >> organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda >> mentions >> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the >> recommendations of >> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : >> continuation >> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the >> mandate or the >> administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to >> discuss >> more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, >> which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. >> The CSTD, >> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is >> not only >> the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for >> ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the >> possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of >> actors on how >> to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >> multi-stakehoder nature. >> The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to >> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. >> Best >> Bertrand >> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué >> Spécial pour >> la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information >> Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French >> Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 >> 88 33 32 >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" >> Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than >> uniting >> humans") >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -- ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >> the Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Thu Feb 25 06:51:09 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:51:09 +0800 Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL on statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B860969.3090300@itforchange.net> References: <1C946E2B-5FDB-4D04-BE05-66E4548E44E9@ciroap.org> <4B860969.3090300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: On 25/02/2010, at 1:23 PM, Parminder wrote: > Separately; while I agree that 30-40 emails with yes no etc suddenly appearing in the inbox may put off some people I also see the advantage on stating one's vote in full view of the list... > > In any case the charters says that all voting, unless specified with due reason, will be open, and therefore even if done by a survey tool the votes must be finally published. I intend to do so. Thanks for the feedback! -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Feb 25 07:44:04 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:44:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> Message-ID: <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, An important element in this debate would be to introduce the intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their corresponding governance mechanisms. The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the commons" paper is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we call stakeholders) can develop common governance frameworks for the management of common resources. Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the spirit is clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems as between state regulation of the commons and privatization/market mechanisms. I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all participants in this discussion to read "Governing the Commons" and "Understanding Institutional Diversity", two of her seminal books on this issue. More on that later when I have thee time. Best Bertrand On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of possible > panaceas, for those are but classes of snake oil that are meant to cure all > ills. And Multistakeholder governance (MSG - i think of MS as multiple > sclerosis) does not belong in the category. > > I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself and as a stage > in the evolving development of governance systems. It represents progress > over the nation-state, bi and multi-lateral modalities. It also moves us > beyond the pure top down or pure bottom up models. In its best form it > allows for persons, both natural and otherwise, to form into self regulated > interest and affinity groupings and allows them, as members of these > groups, and with their individual voices, to participate as peers in the > critical governance activities, including talk, capacity building, action, > regulation and enforcement. > > I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes this important > stage in governance development. I worry mostly that this diminution plays > into the hands of those who want to remain in, and bolster the legitimacy > of, the older variants of the Westfalian military-industrial sovereign > state - whether this is their intention or not. > > a. > > > On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that > it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. It > drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance and > pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. > > > > Who does this and where? > > The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending evaluation of > the IGF, not as a panacea per se. > > > >> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree > and solve all problems. > > > > Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the implications > of a forum without binding decision-making capacity here. > > > > But that it isn't consistent with what we know > >> about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to > be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I should not have to > gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of > "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups and > individuals from unwanted "governance" by others. > > > > With regard to free expression perhaps although free expression needs > rules as well in order to work. Even this list has rules specifying limits > of unwanted behavior. > > > > jeanette > >> --MM > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM > >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > >> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > >> Dear all, > >> Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are > >> ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" > >> that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with > >> Karl Auerbach on this topic. > >> "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or > >> five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : governments, > >> civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). > >> According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a > >> little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the > >> three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, > >> each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is > >> still structured very much in this way, with what I have often > >> described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real > >> interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and > >> "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : > >> "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. > "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in > >> particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie > >> incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or > >> NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of > >> individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to > >> be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to > >> participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder > >> governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful > >> example with its open registration policy that allows > >> individuals. Important established structures (governments, > >> businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making > >> processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. The > corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the > >> decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such > >> individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of > >> people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required > >> to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the > >> classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and > >> akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with > >> something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it > >> informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The > >> purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive > >> manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a > >> stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from > >> a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the > >> challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure > >> that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even > >> if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, > >> actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the > >> decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and > >> structures may have a specific role to play here. . > >> This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In > >> this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to > >> the last bit of the paragraph : > >> MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely > >> intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global > >> governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea > >> of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of > >> perfect global governance the artificial division of society > >> into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" > >> no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. Yes, > what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic > >> form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially > >> divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their > >> interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for > >> the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, > >> governance should be based on the right for any actor, including > >> individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the > >> governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in > >> (is impacted by or concerned with). However, multi-stakeholderism > should not be understood as > >> necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, > >> each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. > >> Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance > >> is the generalization at the international level of the kind of > >> representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower > >> scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President > >> or even Parliament is not the solution. > >> This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that > >> individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their > >> diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an > >> issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its > >> different perspectives carried forward in international discussions > >> by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental > >> issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus > >> others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore > >> want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious > >> of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, > >> they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert > >> some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the > >> employees of companies in an industry that has to support an > >> important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global > >> regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or > >> its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to > >> ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and > >> scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On > >> such global topics, individuals have in fact several > >> stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A > >> major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is > >> not the mere aggregation of national public interests. In such a > perspective, the challenge for all of us, including > >> governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding > >> of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, > >> and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders > >> can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say > >> "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific > >> issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective > >> roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the > >> issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. This means > designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, > >> issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making > >> (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, > >> monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major > >> laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as > >> exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main > >> one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. > I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best > >> Bertrand > >> PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann < > jeanette at wzb.eu > >> > wrote: > >> Second, We > >> need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our > >> label for > >> good governance and appropriate institutions; > >> I don't understand why. > >> MS is at best a > >> transitional phase implying a motion from purely > >> intergovernmental > >> toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. > >> In this > >> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end > >> point is > >> - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance > the > >> artificial division of society into "estates" such as > >> "government, > >> business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the > >> individual > >> that matters. > >> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global > >> governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and > >> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. > >> What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules > >> for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in > >> common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions > >> of it. > >> The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of > >> capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many > >> times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who > >> interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like > >> an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making > >> to me. > >> jeanette > >> jea > >> In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > >> the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how > >> MS is > >> used to fend off certain political actors in this context > >> but somehow > >> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about > >> process but > >> not substance, and policy substance is what matters > ultimately. > >> ________________________________________ From: Parminder > >> [parminder at itforchange.net > >> ] Sent: Sunday, February > >> 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> ; Jeremy > >> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: > >> [governance] > >> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > >> Jeanette and Bertrand, > >> First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open > >> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of > >> developed > >> countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must > have > >> forgotten that part from their interventions because there > >> principal > >> point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. > >> And I am > >> sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that > >> would be > >> because of this procedural part. > >> However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about > my > >> 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the > mentioned > >> interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much > >> motivation but > >> the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke > >> about, I can > >> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of > >> motivation'. > >> Political motivations are generally a subject requiring > deeper > >> analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are > >> interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the > >> multi-stakeholder > >> nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes > them > >> 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political > >> stage, > >> and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One > >> may ask in > >> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. > >> Why not > >> have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and > >> negotiations? > >> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed > >> currently? And > >> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO > >> involvement > >> friendly and not developed countries? > >> Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it > >> ends is, > >> therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I > >> understand > >> that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit > >> possibilities > >> for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues > >> because control > >> over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along > >> with > >> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global > >> domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF > >> which is > >> little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has > >> this great > >> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - > >> letting off > >> excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation > >> in shaping > >> the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately > >> developing > >> countries mostly have not woken up to the global > >> eco-socio-political > >> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist > >> controls > >> within their own territories. > >> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many > >> developing countries want the IGF to have more > >> substantive > >> role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet > >> policy > >> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the > >> place > >> holder. Developed countries seem not interested in > >> furthering > >> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical > community > >> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil > >> society > >> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter > >> two also > >> have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, > >> nature of > >> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that > >> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global > >> Internet policy > >> making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the > >> extent to > >> which it does so. > >> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF > >> to make > >> recommendations where necessary. > >> I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the > >> following > >> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key > substantive > >> issue in the email. > >> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability > >> of the > >> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG > >> should mainly > >> revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? > >> and not get > >> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the > >> administrative and > >> operational organization of the Forum. > >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN > >> General > >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) > >> to discuss > >> more than the Yes or >No question. > >> Section 74 of TA reads > >> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of > >> options > >> for the convening of the Forum ..........' > >> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized > >> structure that would be subject to periodic review". > >> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not > >> renegotiate > >> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational > >> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and > >> change. > >> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes > >> (taking it > >> closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other > kinds > >> (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused > >> agenda, > >> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and > more > >> effective connections to forums where substantive Internet > >> policy is > >> made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). > >> I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not > >> able to > >> get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed > >> to enable > >> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really > >> effective, there > >> is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF > >> review > >> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' > >> than is > >> needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and > >> sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more > progressive > >> changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the > >> background, in > >> fact, into the oblivion. > >> Parminder > >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, > >> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not > >> thinking > >> of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a > >> different politics. They suspect China (along with some > >> others) is up > >> to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's > >> report > >> give them a better chance to put their views in more > >> solidly, not > >> that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some > >> governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously > >> are more > >> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since > >> weakening > >> MS process was not what the government who spoke at the > >> consultations > >> really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, > >> our first > >> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke > >> about the > >> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, > >> that is > >> all. > >> I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit > of > >> discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who > >> spoke in > >> Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. > >> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet > >> Governance forum came principally from the discussions of > >> the WGIG, > >> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the > >> mandate of > >> the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by > >> governments > >> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an > >> important > >> role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself > >> has been > >> organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process > >> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda > >> mentions > >> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the > >> recommendations of > >> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : > >> continuation > >> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the > >> mandate or the > >> administrative and operational organization of the Forum. > >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General > >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to > >> discuss > >> more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to > self-organize, > >> which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. > >> The CSTD, > >> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is > >> not only > >> the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions > for > >> ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has > the > >> possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of > >> actors on how > >> to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental > >> multi-stakehoder nature. > >> The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order > to > >> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > >> Best > >> Bertrand > >> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué > >> Spécial pour > >> la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information > >> Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ > French > >> Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 > >> 88 33 32 > >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" > >> Antoine de > >> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than > >> uniting > >> humans") > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any > >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> -- ____________________ > >> Bertrand de La Chapelle > >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > >> the Information Society > >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > >> Foreign and European Affairs > >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > >> Saint Exupéry > >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it Thu Feb 25 08:12:35 2010 From: f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it (Fiorello Cortiana) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:12:35 +0100 Subject: R: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2E135@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Bernard, thanks for reporting the books of Elinor Ostrom. I've had the honor and the pleasure to write the preface to the Italian edition of her book "Understanding Knowledge As a Commons" so it was nice to see her rewarded with the Nobel Prize ciao Fiorello ________________________________ Da: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Inviato: giovedì 25 febbraio 2010 13.44 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Oggetto: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Dear all, An important element in this debate would be to introduce the intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their corresponding governance mechanisms. The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the commons" paper is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we call stakeholders) can develop common governance frameworks for the management of common resources. Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the spirit is clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems as between state regulation of the commons and privatization/market mechanisms. I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all participants in this discussion to read "Governing the Commons " and "Understanding Institutional Diversity ", two of her seminal books on this issue. More on that later when I have thee time. Best Bertrand On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote: hi, I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of possible panaceas, for those are but classes of snake oil that are meant to cure all ills. And Multistakeholder governance (MSG - i think of MS as multiple sclerosis) does not belong in the category. I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself and as a stage in the evolving development of governance systems. It represents progress over the nation-state, bi and multi-lateral modalities. It also moves us beyond the pure top down or pure bottom up models. In its best form it allows for persons, both natural and otherwise, to form into self regulated interest and affinity groupings and allows them, as members of these groups, and with their individual voices, to participate as peers in the critical governance activities, including talk, capacity building, action, regulation and enforcement. I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes this important stage in governance development. I worry mostly that this diminution plays into the hands of those who want to remain in, and bolster the legitimacy of, the older variants of the Westfalian military-industrial sovereign state - whether this is their intention or not. a. On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > >> One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. > > Who does this and where? > The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending evaluation of the IGF, not as a panacea per se. > >> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and solve all problems. > > Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the implications of a forum without binding decision-making capacity here. > > But that it isn't consistent with what we know >> about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by others. > > With regard to free expression perhaps although free expression needs rules as well in order to work. Even this list has rules specifying limits of unwanted behavior. > > jeanette >> --MM >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand >> Dear all, >> Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are >> ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" >> that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with >> Karl Auerbach on this topic. >> "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or >> five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : governments, >> civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). >> According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a >> little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the >> three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, >> each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is >> still structured very much in this way, with what I have often >> described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real >> interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and >> "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : >> "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in >> particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie >> incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or >> NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of >> individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to >> be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to >> participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder >> governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful >> example with its open registration policy that allows >> individuals. Important established structures (governments, >> businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making >> processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the >> decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such >> individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of >> people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required >> to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the >> classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and >> akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with >> something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it >> informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The >> purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive >> manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a >> stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from >> a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the >> challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure >> that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even >> if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, >> actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the >> decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and >> structures may have a specific role to play here. . >> This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In >> this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to >> the last bit of the paragraph : >> MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely >> intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global >> governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea >> of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of >> perfect global governance the artificial division of society >> into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" >> no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic >> form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially >> divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their >> interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for >> the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, >> governance should be based on the right for any actor, including >> individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the >> governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in >> (is impacted by or concerned with). However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as >> necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, >> each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. >> Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance >> is the generalization at the international level of the kind of >> representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower >> scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President >> or even Parliament is not the solution. >> This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that >> individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their >> diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an >> issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its >> different perspectives carried forward in international discussions >> by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental >> issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus >> others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore >> want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious >> of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, >> they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert >> some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the >> employees of companies in an industry that has to support an >> important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global >> regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or >> its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to >> ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and >> scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On >> such global topics, individuals have in fact several >> stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A >> major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is >> not the mere aggregation of national public interests. In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including >> governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding >> of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, >> and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders >> can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say >> "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific >> issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective >> roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the >> issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, >> issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making >> (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, >> monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major >> laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as >> exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main >> one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best >> Bertrand >> PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > > wrote: >> Second, We >> need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our >> label for >> good governance and appropriate institutions; >> I don't understand why. >> MS is at best a >> transitional phase implying a motion from purely >> intergovernmental >> toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. >> In this >> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end >> point is >> - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the >> artificial division of society into "estates" such as >> "government, >> business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the >> individual >> that matters. >> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global >> governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and >> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. >> What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules >> for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in >> common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions >> of it. >> The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of >> capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many >> times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who >> interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like >> an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making >> to me. >> jeanette >> jea >> In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers >> the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how >> MS is >> used to fend off certain political actors in this context >> but somehow >> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about >> process but >> not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. >> ________________________________________ From: Parminder >> [parminder at itforchange.net >> ] Sent: Sunday, February >> 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> ; Jeremy >> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: >> [governance] >> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >> Jeanette and Bertrand, >> First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of >> developed >> countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have >> forgotten that part from their interventions because there >> principal >> point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. >> And I am >> sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that >> would be >> because of this procedural part. >> However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my >> 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned >> interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much >> motivation but >> the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke >> about, I can >> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of >> motivation'. >> Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper >> analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >> interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the >> multi-stakeholder >> nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them >> 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political >> stage, >> and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One >> may ask in >> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. >> Why not >> have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and >> negotiations? >> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed >> currently? And >> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO >> involvement >> friendly and not developed countries? >> Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it >> ends is, >> therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I >> understand >> that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit >> possibilities >> for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues >> because control >> over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along >> with >> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >> domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF >> which is >> little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has >> this great >> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - >> letting off >> excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation >> in shaping >> the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately >> developing >> countries mostly have not woken up to the global >> eco-socio-political >> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist >> controls >> within their own territories. >> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >> developing countries want the IGF to have more >> substantive >> role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet >> policy >> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the >> place >> holder. Developed countries seem not interested in >> furthering >> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community >> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil >> society >> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter >> two also >> have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, >> nature of >> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that >> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global >> Internet policy >> making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the >> extent to >> which it does so. >> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF >> to make >> recommendations where necessary. >> I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the >> following >> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive >> issue in the email. >> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability >> of the >> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG >> should mainly >> revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? >> and not get >> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >> administrative and >> operational organization of the Forum. >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN >> General >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) >> to discuss >> more than the Yes or >No question. >> Section 74 of TA reads >> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of >> options >> for the convening of the Forum ..........' >> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized >> structure that would be subject to periodic review". >> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not >> renegotiate >> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational >> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and >> change. >> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes >> (taking it >> closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds >> (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused >> agenda, >> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more >> effective connections to forums where substantive Internet >> policy is >> made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). >> I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not >> able to >> get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed >> to enable >> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really >> effective, there >> is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF >> review >> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' >> than is >> needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >> sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive >> changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the >> background, in >> fact, into the oblivion. >> Parminder >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, >> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not >> thinking >> of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >> different politics. They suspect China (along with some >> others) is up >> to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's >> report >> give them a better chance to put their views in more >> solidly, not >> that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >> governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously >> are more >> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since >> weakening >> MS process was not what the government who spoke at the >> consultations >> really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, >> our first >> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke >> about the >> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, >> that is >> all. >> I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of >> discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who >> spoke in >> Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. >> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >> Governance forum came principally from the discussions of >> the WGIG, >> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the >> mandate of >> the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by >> governments >> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an >> important >> role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself >> has been >> organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda >> mentions >> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the >> recommendations of >> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : >> continuation >> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the >> mandate or the >> administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to >> discuss >> more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, >> which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. >> The CSTD, >> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is >> not only >> the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for >> ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the >> possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of >> actors on how >> to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >> multi-stakehoder nature. >> The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to >> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. >> Best >> Bertrand >> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué >> Spécial pour >> la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information >> Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French >> Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 >> 88 33 32 >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" >> Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than >> uniting >> humans") >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> -- ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >> the Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From f.massit at orange.fr Thu Feb 25 09:26:52 2010 From: f.massit at orange.fr (massit follea) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:26:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> Dear all list-members, deepening Bertrand's reference : Elinor Ostrom is speaking about "stable LOCAL common property resource management" as 1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties); 2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources adapted to local conditions; 3. Collective-choice arrangements allowing most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process; 4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators; 5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules; 6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution cheap and of easy access; 7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; 8. In the case of larger common-pool resources: organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level. Elinor Ostrom: « Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action ». Cambridge University Press. 1990. p.90, and « Understanding Institutional Diversity ». Princeton, Princeton University Press. 2005. p.259 F Massit-Folléa Le 25 févr. 2010 à 13:44, Bertrand de La Chapelle a écrit : > Dear all, > > An important element in this debate would be to introduce the intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their corresponding governance mechanisms. > > The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the commons" paper is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we call stakeholders) can develop common governance frameworks for the management of common resources. > > Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the spirit is clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems as between state regulation of the commons and privatization/market mechanisms. > > I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all participants in this discussion to read "Governing the Commons" and "Understanding Institutional Diversity", two of her seminal books on this issue. > > More on that later when I have thee time. > > Best > > Bertrand > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > hi, > > I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of possible panaceas, for those are but classes of snake oil that are meant to cure all ills. And Multistakeholder governance (MSG - i think of MS as multiple sclerosis) does not belong in the category. > > I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself and as a stage in the evolving development of governance systems. It represents progress over the nation-state, bi and multi-lateral modalities. It also moves us beyond the pure top down or pure bottom up models. In its best form it allows for persons, both natural and otherwise, to form into self regulated interest and affinity groupings and allows them, as members of these groups, and with their individual voices, to participate as peers in the critical governance activities, including talk, capacity building, action, regulation and enforcement. > > I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes this important stage in governance development. I worry mostly that this diminution plays into the hands of those who want to remain in, and bolster the legitimacy of, the older variants of the Westfalian military-industrial sovereign state - whether this is their intention or not. > > a. > > > On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. > > > > Who does this and where? > > The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending evaluation of the IGF, not as a panacea per se. > > > >> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree and solve all problems. > > > > Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the implications of a forum without binding decision-making capacity here. > > > > But that it isn't consistent with what we know > >> about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by others. > > > > With regard to free expression perhaps although free expression needs rules as well in order to work. Even this list has rules specifying limits of unwanted behavior. > > > > jeanette > >> --MM > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM > >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann > >> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > >> Dear all, > >> Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are > >> ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" > >> that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with > >> Karl Auerbach on this topic. > >> "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or > >> five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : governments, > >> civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). > >> According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a > >> little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the > >> three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, > >> each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is > >> still structured very much in this way, with what I have often > >> described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real > >> interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and > >> "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : > >> "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in > >> particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie > >> incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or > >> NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of > >> individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to > >> be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to > >> participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder > >> governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful > >> example with its open registration policy that allows > >> individuals. Important established structures (governments, > >> businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making > >> processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the > >> decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such > >> individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of > >> people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required > >> to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the > >> classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and > >> akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with > >> something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it > >> informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The > >> purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive > >> manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a > >> stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from > >> a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the > >> challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure > >> that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even > >> if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, > >> actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the > >> decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and > >> structures may have a specific role to play here. . > >> This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In > >> this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to > >> the last bit of the paragraph : > >> MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely > >> intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global > >> governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea > >> of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of > >> perfect global governance the artificial division of society > >> into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" > >> no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic > >> form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially > >> divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their > >> interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for > >> the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, > >> governance should be based on the right for any actor, including > >> individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the > >> governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in > >> (is impacted by or concerned with). However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as > >> necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, > >> each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. > >> Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance > >> is the generalization at the international level of the kind of > >> representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower > >> scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President > >> or even Parliament is not the solution. > >> This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that > >> individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their > >> diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an > >> issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its > >> different perspectives carried forward in international discussions > >> by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental > >> issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus > >> others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore > >> want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious > >> of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, > >> they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert > >> some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the > >> employees of companies in an industry that has to support an > >> important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global > >> regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or > >> its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to > >> ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and > >> scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On > >> such global topics, individuals have in fact several > >> stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A > >> major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is > >> not the mere aggregation of national public interests. In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including > >> governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding > >> of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, > >> and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders > >> can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say > >> "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific > >> issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective > >> roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the > >> issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, > >> issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making > >> (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, > >> monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major > >> laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as > >> exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main > >> one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best > >> Bertrand > >> PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann >> > wrote: > >> Second, We > >> need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our > >> label for > >> good governance and appropriate institutions; > >> I don't understand why. > >> MS is at best a > >> transitional phase implying a motion from purely > >> intergovernmental > >> toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. > >> In this > >> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end > >> point is > >> - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the > >> artificial division of society into "estates" such as > >> "government, > >> business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the > >> individual > >> that matters. > >> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global > >> governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and > >> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. > >> What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules > >> for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in > >> common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions > >> of it. > >> The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of > >> capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many > >> times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who > >> interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like > >> an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making > >> to me. > >> jeanette > >> jea > >> In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > >> the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how > >> MS is > >> used to fend off certain political actors in this context > >> but somehow > >> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about > >> process but > >> not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. > >> ________________________________________ From: Parminder > >> [parminder at itforchange.net > >> ] Sent: Sunday, February > >> 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> ; Jeremy > >> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: > >> [governance] > >> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > >> Jeanette and Bertrand, > >> First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open > >> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of > >> developed > >> countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have > >> forgotten that part from their interventions because there > >> principal > >> point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. > >> And I am > >> sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that > >> would be > >> because of this procedural part. > >> However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my > >> 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned > >> interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much > >> motivation but > >> the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke > >> about, I can > >> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of > >> motivation'. > >> Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper > >> analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are > >> interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the > >> multi-stakeholder > >> nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them > >> 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political > >> stage, > >> and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One > >> may ask in > >> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. > >> Why not > >> have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and > >> negotiations? > >> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed > >> currently? And > >> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO > >> involvement > >> friendly and not developed countries? > >> Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it > >> ends is, > >> therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I > >> understand > >> that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit > >> possibilities > >> for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues > >> because control > >> over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along > >> with > >> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global > >> domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF > >> which is > >> little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has > >> this great > >> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - > >> letting off > >> excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation > >> in shaping > >> the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately > >> developing > >> countries mostly have not woken up to the global > >> eco-socio-political > >> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist > >> controls > >> within their own territories. > >> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many > >> developing countries want the IGF to have more > >> substantive > >> role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet > >> policy > >> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the > >> place > >> holder. Developed countries seem not interested in > >> furthering > >> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community > >> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil > >> society > >> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter > >> two also > >> have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, > >> nature of > >> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that > >> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global > >> Internet policy > >> making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the > >> extent to > >> which it does so. > >> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF > >> to make > >> recommendations where necessary. > >> I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the > >> following > >> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive > >> issue in the email. > >> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability > >> of the > >> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG > >> should mainly > >> revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? > >> and not get > >> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the > >> administrative and > >> operational organization of the Forum. > >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN > >> General > >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) > >> to discuss > >> more than the Yes or >No question. > >> Section 74 of TA reads > >> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of > >> options > >> for the convening of the Forum ..........' > >> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized > >> structure that would be subject to periodic review". > >> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not > >> renegotiate > >> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational > >> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and > >> change. > >> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes > >> (taking it > >> closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds > >> (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused > >> agenda, > >> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more > >> effective connections to forums where substantive Internet > >> policy is > >> made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). > >> I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not > >> able to > >> get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed > >> to enable > >> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really > >> effective, there > >> is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF > >> review > >> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' > >> than is > >> needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and > >> sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive > >> changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the > >> background, in > >> fact, into the oblivion. > >> Parminder > >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, > >> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not > >> thinking > >> of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a > >> different politics. They suspect China (along with some > >> others) is up > >> to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's > >> report > >> give them a better chance to put their views in more > >> solidly, not > >> that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some > >> governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously > >> are more > >> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since > >> weakening > >> MS process was not what the government who spoke at the > >> consultations > >> really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, > >> our first > >> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke > >> about the > >> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, > >> that is > >> all. > >> I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of > >> discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who > >> spoke in > >> Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. > >> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet > >> Governance forum came principally from the discussions of > >> the WGIG, > >> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the > >> mandate of > >> the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by > >> governments > >> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an > >> important > >> role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself > >> has been > >> organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process > >> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda > >> mentions > >> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the > >> recommendations of > >> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : > >> continuation > >> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the > >> mandate or the > >> administrative and operational organization of the Forum. > >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General > >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to > >> discuss > >> more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, > >> which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. > >> The CSTD, > >> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is > >> not only > >> the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for > >> ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the > >> possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of > >> actors on how > >> to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental > >> multi-stakehoder nature. > >> The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to > >> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > >> Best > >> Bertrand > >> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué > >> Spécial pour > >> la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information > >> Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French > >> Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 > >> 88 33 32 > >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" > >> Antoine de > >> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than > >> uniting > >> humans") > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any > >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >> > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> -- ____________________ > >> Bertrand de La Chapelle > >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > >> the Information Society > >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > >> Foreign and European Affairs > >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > >> Saint Exupéry > >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t françoise massit follea f.massit at orange.fr Tél. 06 74 51 67 65 - merci de ne plus utiliser l'adresse (at) ens-lsh.fr - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ias_pk at yahoo.com Thu Feb 25 09:37:56 2010 From: ias_pk at yahoo.com (Imran Ahmed Shah) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:37:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <451300.25215.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <451300.25215.qm@web33005.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <844826.43370.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Re-submitted Message: Dear IGC and UN/IGF Members, I think the discussion regarding Multi-Stakeholder (MS) as a member of IGF/MAG or IGC" will remain open ended (because it is going off the track). However, it may have a positive resolution, only when the discussion ends with a proposal which have any positive impact on the framework of IGF (by coming on the right track). Let me explain that how it can be. We are going out of track when we discuss about the definition of Stake holders, Multi-Stake Holders or try to find out their stakes if they belongs to internet governance. (e.g. discussing that how ILO has multiple groups and multiple stakes. Right, rather then this, (the discussion should bring) right on the track by defining that does IGF membership includes the participation from Multiple types of the Stakes Holders? If not, how this can become possible? I think the IGF needs re-construction of its framework. (As I also have proposed during last survey). IGF of United Nations should have at least following three Groups (instead of single MAG):- 1. First Group: Representation of Governments of all Member Countries/Territories of the United Nations. They will act like Force Implementation of the UN/IGF Policies, rules and regulations (in their countries) and to arrange to provide Funds requred for Implementation (+ICT Policies). 2. Second Group: Representations of Technology Experts and Policy Implementer(s) from the Commercial and Non-Commercial Organizations, Institutions, Groups or Societies. They will not only help to prepare best policies but also extend the policies and implementation process in the community up to the end user (public: citizen or netizen). 3. Third Group: Representatives of Public, Societies, Communities or Individuals as a User where the Policies Implementation will have  direct impact. The membership ratio can be 30%+30%+40% respectively. The members of IGC can become part of these groups. These three groups may have: Tree different mailing List + Discussion Forum and One common mailing list and Discussion Forum. These groups will participate for policies development and implementation for Internet Governance. There should be at least three Directors and three coordinators of UN/IGF and permanently based at IGF Office.  Membership of these Groups may become open for all when this model is approved by the UNSG. I hope that this proposed framework may resolve many issues and will have a very positive impact on the UN/IGF fundamental theme. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah [ICANNian since Oct'09] [ +92 300 4130617  +92 300 4130617 ] ________________________________ From: Imran Ahmed Shah To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net; bdelachapelle at gmail.com; jeanette at wzb.eu Cc: mueller at syr.edu; parminder at itforchange.net; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; ias_pk at yahoo.com Sent: Thu, 25 February, 2010 1:58:17 Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Dear(s) The discussion started to define the definition of the type of Multi-Stakeholder as a member of IGF/MAG or IGC will remain open ended (because it is going off the track). However, it may have a positive resolution of discussion, if the proposal also have positive impact on the framework of IGF by coming on the right track. Let me explain (how it can) in a seperate discussion thread as "Proposed Framework". Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah On Wed Feb 24th, 2010 7:35 PM PKT Eric Dierker wrote: >Sometimes taking and usurping the natural and general use of a word and creating labels of classes is a very bad thing. For longer than otherwise "person" did not include slave or lady. The use of "stakeholder" is definately meant to create a group class distinction. >  >But what do I know - the world changes: Yahoo translated today English to Spanish - Shoeshine boy to this -- >Pronounced: leem-pee-ah-bóh-tahs Type: noun Example: Los limpiabotas casi han desaparecido de la vida moderna. Translation: Shoeshine boys have almost disappeared fro...:::: I promise you limpia is not shine and botas is not shoe. >So maybe today a "Stakeholder" is only a member of an elite class of people and definately not users or dotcommoners.  > >--- On Wed, 2/24/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > >From: Bertrand de La Chapelle >Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" >Cc: "Milton L Mueller" , "Parminder" , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 12:38 PM > > >Dear all, > > >Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. > > >"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion.  > > >"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too.  > > >The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account > in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . > > >This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph  : >MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters.  > > >Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with).  > > >However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. > > >This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs > and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation.  Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests.  > > >In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.    > > >This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place.  > > >I hope this helps move the discussion forward.  > > >Best > > >Bertrand > > >PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. >   > > >On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > Second, We > >need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for >good governance and appropriate institutions; > >I don't understand why. > > >MS is at best a > >transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental >toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this >progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is >- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the >artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, >business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual >that matters. > >I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. >The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. >jeanette > >jea > > > >In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > > > > >the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is >used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow >does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but >not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. > >________________________________________ From: Parminder >[parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy >Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] >REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > >Jeanette and Bertrand, > >First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed >countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have >forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal >point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am >sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be >because of this procedural part. > >However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my >'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned >interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but >the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can >hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. >Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper >analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder >nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them >'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, >and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in >this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not >have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? >Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And >why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement >friendly and  not developed countries? > >Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, >therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand >that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities >for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control >over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with >stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is >little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great >advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off >excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping >the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing >countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political >domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls >within their own territories. > >Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive >role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy >regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place >holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering >the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community >supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society >(dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also >have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of >IGF, with no consideration to the fact that > >1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy >making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to >which it does so. > >2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make >recommendations where necessary. > >I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following >assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive >issue in the email. > > >para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the >continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly >revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get >into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and >operational organization of the Forum. > > >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >more than the Yes or >No question. > >Section 74 of TA reads > >"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options >for the convening of the Forum ..........' > >and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized >structure that would be subject to periodic review". > >Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate >the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational >organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. > >In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it >closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds >(things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, >some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more >effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is >made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). > >I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to >get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable >the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there >is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review >debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is >needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive >changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in >fact, into the oblivion. > >Parminder > > >Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, > >Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking >of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up >to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report >give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not >that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more >vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening >MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations >really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first >assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the >proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is >all. > >I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of >discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in >Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. > >The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, >which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of >the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments >only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important >role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been >organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions >"the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of >the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation >Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >administrative and operational organization of the Forum. > >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, >which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, >because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only >the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for >ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the >possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how >to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >multi-stakehoder nature. > >The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to >preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > >Best > >Bertrand > >-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour >la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information >Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French >Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting >humans") ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >   governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle >Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society >Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > >-----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Feb 25 09:59:31 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:29:31 +0530 Subject: [governance] Multistakeholderism (was Parminder's exchange with Bertrand) In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B869053.5060500@itforchange.net> Bertrand (and others) I have carefully gone through your analysis (and that of others). However I could find no situation, or rather no governance requirement, that cannot be met within a 'democratic governance' framework, with all the cutting edge work being done in the areas of deepening democracy, deliberative democracy, decentralization (increasing application of the principle of subsidiarity), stakeholder consultation/ participation etc. I do see that the context of global governance throws new challenges - especially of scale and complexity/ multiplicity of issues. However, I find it perfectly possible to address these new situations through exploration of the 'democratic governance' framework we all know, and are acquainted with the history and the philosophical/ normative basis of. Therefore, the principle question in this discussion is; why do we abandon an evolutionary 'democratic governance' framework in favour of a completely new 'multistakeholder governance framework'? Democratic governance has a clear ethical basis in equality of all human beings who are expected to relate and interact with each other on terms of equality. I would like to similarly hear about the first principles of this new form 'MS'ism'. ( Bertrand, I do see that you refer to MS-ism as an intermediate stage towards more open and democratic systems. However (1) this implied transition from one kind of democratic system through an MS system - whose conformity to democratic principles is very questionable - to a higher stage of democratic system is conceptually and practically very unclear, and apparently untenable, to me, and (2) during some earlier discussions a few other now involved in this debate - e.x. Jeanette and Avri - had positioned 'Ms-ism' as an alternative and not a step to more democratic systems. ) I do understand and accept that elements of issue-centred governance at the global level bring forth a different requirement/ manner of alignment of actors which situation may have partly led to the MS terminology. However, I think that this situation is perfectly possible to be addressed through evolutionary forms of 'democratic governance'. i would like to engage on this line of discussion more but let me shift to another point, which is perhaps more important to deal with, and if possible get out of way, in discussing MS-ism. This is the issue of the legitimacy and status of big business in policy making in the new MS-kind of governance models. As I see it, most people who are for deepening democracy (and other evolutionary forms of democracy) will easily be with the MS crowd but for the latter's deep silences and/ or ambiguity on this one issue. It quite amazes me how we are able to do such long discussions on MS-ism without discussing this key, in fact, the central issue, which divides civil society. How well we manage to ignore this gorilla in the room. Is it not one of the primary questions for a civil society group to address when discussing MS-ism?? Why such silences on this question? We all know that the one group that has gained completely new legitimacy at policy tables due to MS-ism is the business sector. And it is also the sector which, at all places where MS-ism is practised, has by far taken the most advantage (often, all the advantage). Citizen groups and civil society actors always had some kind of legitimate claims to policy making spaces, even if the real practice of deep democracy remained a deeply contested arena. (For instance, UN still have no official process to involve business actors in its processes while there is a long history of CS involvement.) In any case, deepening democracy precisely deals with increasing CS participation in the processes of governance. Why do we need to carry the big business in our laps to the policy table in advocating MS-ism rather than deepening democracy? In the light of above, I would like to understand from those who advocate MS-ism, how do they see business, especially big business (which almost completely dominates business seats at policy tables), which simply represents the interests of 'capital', a non-human entity if there was one, as an legitimate actor at policy table, in equality with those who represent interests of real people and groups of people. I do expect to hear that interests of 'capital' are really the interests of shareholders and thus of real people. Maybe. But a basic tenet of democratic governance is equality of participation. Democratic governance is supposed to provide an counter (political) force to undue/ excessive domination of some over others. MSism enables exactly the opposite - it gives the more powerful ever more political power. This is against the basic principles and practices of democracy. Democratic governance aims at upholding public interest, which no doubt consists of multiple private interests but in some important ways rises above it. MS-ism is a naked negotiation based on power. Little surprise that it often employs the language of economic contracts even for things which are apparently political (reminds me of an old email of Bill's on ICANN policy making process). Lets accept it. MS-ism is the preferred governance system of neo-liberalism, which aims at reducing every social institution to something as close to a market system as possible. MS's march is the march of neoliberalism. It is obvious that one cannot attain a huge degree of economic (and cultural) integration of the world without some concomitant enhanced global governance systems. Developed countries are afraid that any promotion of democratic political systems at the global level would work - as democratic power is supposed to work - as a check to their undue dominance through still greater economic and cultural imperialism. This new thing - MS-ism - serves them well. Big business is still overwhelmingly developed countries based. There is a new state-business alliance which needs to be confronted. MSism rather than confronting it, promotes it. Thats is what it is for me. I will be glad to hear refutations, and counter logics. (Avri, we are moving towards post military-industrial state-business compacts, and while fighting one we cannot help create the other, most likely, a much more virulent version. Present dominances are mostly based on controlling financial systems and flows, and we are moving towards dominances that would be primarily IP-control based helped along with control over techno-social infrastructure. That is why democratic governance of Internet is important, and that is why correspondingly, developed country's and big business' enthusiasm for neolib MSism in this area.) If the illegitimate route to political power that MS-ism affords to big business is somehow taken out, MS-ism for me is a form of deepening democracy, which is one of the principle aims and areas of work of my organization. MSism as practised, however, seeks to supplant elements of political discourse and practise native to democracy - public interest, public sphere, conflict of interest, equality, human rights, social justice etc. It seeks to take us to a pre-democratic era where political systems were built on the basis of power that an actor already possessed in the society. This power is now expressed through the 'power to participate' and influence. What was earlier back room business lobbying has now got new legitimacy and respectability, and correspondingly more power. That is how a post-democratic MS governance system really works. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are > ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" > that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with > Karl Auerbach on this topic. > > "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or > five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : governments, > civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). > According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a > little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the > three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each > in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still > structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as > the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among > actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" > need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and > more diverse notion. > > "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in > particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie > incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or > NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of > individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be > the case and that individuals should have the possibility to > participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder > governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful > example with its open registration policy that allows > individuals. Important established structures (governments, > businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making > processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. > > The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the > decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such > individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of > people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to > demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical > question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the > "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to > contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes > and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases > is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into > account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in > such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country > can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for > youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is > taken into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from > such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the > different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that > follows, and established institutions and structures may have a > specific role to play here. . > > This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In > this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the > last bit of the paragraph : > > MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely > intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global > governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of > what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect > global governance the artificial division of society into > "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no > longer exists; it is the individual that matters. > > > Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic > form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially > divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their > interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the > IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, > governance should be based on the right for any actor, including > individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance > processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted > by or concerned with). > > However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily > meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting > their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not > believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at > the international level of the kind of representative democracy that > already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion > individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. > > This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that > individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their > diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an > issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its > different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by > a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, > citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in > the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their > government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the > future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may > want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some > pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the > employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important > effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will > impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade > group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that > any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, > which requests expert participation. Etc... On such global topics, > individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and > citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the > global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public > interests. > > In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including > governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding > of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and > to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, > collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), > "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have > often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different > stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the > state of the discussion. > > This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, > issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification > of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and > enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where > this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these > exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the > political theory discussion can actually take place. > > I hope this helps move the discussion forward. > > Best > > Bertrand > > PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > wrote: > > > > > Second, We > > need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our > label for > good governance and appropriate institutions; > > > I don't understand why. > > > MS is at best a > > transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental > toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this > progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end > point is > - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the > artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, > business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual > that matters. > > > I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global > governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer > to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we > are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life > in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that > respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. > The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of > capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, > but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in > the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished > notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. > jeanette > > jea > > In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > > the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is > used to fend off certain political actors in this context but > somehow > does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about > process but > not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. > > ________________________________________ From: Parminder > [parminder at itforchange.net ] > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La > Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; Jeremy > Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: > [governance] > REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > > Jeanette and Bertrand, > > First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open > consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed > countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have > forgotten that part from their interventions because there > principal > point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am > sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be > because of this procedural part. > > However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my > 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned > interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much > motivation but > the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, > I can > hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of > motivation'. > Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper > analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are > interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the > multi-stakeholder > nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them > 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political > stage, > and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may > ask in > this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not > have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and > negotiations? > Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And > why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO > involvement > friendly and not developed countries? > > Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, > therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand > that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit > possibilities > for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because > control > over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with > stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global > domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is > little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has > this great > advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off > excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in > shaping > the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately > developing > countries mostly have not woken up to the global > eco-socio-political > domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls > within their own territories. > > Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many > developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive > role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy > regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place > holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering > the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community > supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil > society > (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also > have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, > nature of > IGF, with no consideration to the fact that > > 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet > policy > making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the > extent to > which it does so. > > 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make > recommendations where necessary. > > I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the > following > assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive > issue in the email. > > para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the > continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG > should mainly > revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? > and not get > into any renegotiation of the mandate or the > administrative and > operational organization of the Forum. > > > In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General > assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to > discuss > more than the Yes or >No question. > > > Section 74 of TA reads > > "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of > options > for the convening of the Forum ..........' > > and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized > structure that would be subject to periodic review". > > Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate > the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational > organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. > > In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes > (taking it > closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds > (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused > agenda, > some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more > effective connections to forums where substantive Internet > policy is > made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). > > I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not > able to > get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to > enable > the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, > there > is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF > review > debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is > needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and > sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive > changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in > fact, into the oblivion. > > Parminder > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, > > Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not > thinking > of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a > different politics. They suspect China (along with some > others) is up > to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report > give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not > that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some > governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously > are more > vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since > weakening > MS process was not what the government who spoke at the > consultations > really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, > our first > assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the > proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, > that is > all. > > I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of > discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who > spoke in > Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. > > The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet > Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the > WGIG, > which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of > the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by > governments > only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an > important > role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself > has been > organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process > (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions > "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the > recommendations of > the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation > Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate > or the > administrative and operational organization of the Forum. > > In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General > assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss > more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, > which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. > The CSTD, > because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not > only > the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for > ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the > possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors > on how > to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental > multi-stakehoder nature. > > The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to > preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > > Best > > Bertrand > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué > Spécial pour > la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information > Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French > Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 > 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" > Antoine de > Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than > uniting > humans") > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any > message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 25 11:21:49 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:21:49 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL on statement to UNSG on bypassing In-Reply-To: <4B860969.3090300@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <549156.47650.qm@web83906.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I think that the survey tools are useful.  I do like the charter openness provisions. But more importantly I learn a great deal by seeing how more learned colleagues vote. --- On Thu, 2/25/10, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: Re: [governance] CONSENSUS CALL on statement to UNSG on bypassing To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 5:23 AM Yes. Separately; while I agree that 30-40 emails with yes no etc suddenly appearing in the inbox may put off some people I also see the advantage on stating one's vote in full view of the list... In any case the charters says that all voting, unless specified with due reason, will be open, and therefore even if done by a survey tool the votes must be finally published. Parminder Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: Yes Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: Below is the final statement on which a 48 hour consensus call is now being made.  Rather than replying with YES or NO here, please wait to receive a personalised email containing a code that allows you to respond using a Web-based survey form.  If you do not receive this email within 2 hours from now, please check with me off-list. The online survey link has been sent to all current members of this list.  I realise that some members of this list are subscribed more than once.  I would ask them to respond only once, because responses will be publicly archived and it will be apparent if more than one response has been given per person. If you have comments beyond a YES or NO, then you may post them to this list as usual.  The use of an online survey form is simply to cut down on the unwanted (for some) list traffic that a consensus call causes.  Thanks for your participation! AN OPEN LETTER FROM THE INTERNET GOVERNANCE CAUCUS TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL, BAN KI-MOON   Your Excellency,   The Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) congratulates you on the completion and imminent delivery of your report and recommendations on the desirability of the continuation of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), based on formal consultations at the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt.   We request that in the interest of an open and transparent process, and in accordance with established practice, these recommendations be made available to the annual session of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) in May 2010.   Our request is in line with the views expressed by several government delegates at the open consultations on the IGF held in February 2010, to the effect that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD before being considered by the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and then by the UN Assembly.   The CSTD is formally mandated to engage with all issues of follow up from the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and its specialized knowledge and history of engagement with WSIS issues, including the IGF, will provide the best basis for an informed consideration of the issue by the ECOSOC and the UN Assembly.   The CSTD also provides relatively greater multistakeholder involvement than its parent body, ECOSOC, following its "strengthening ... taking into account the multistakeholder approach"  (Tunis Agenda, para 105) pursuant to ECOSOC decisions 2007/215, 2007/216, 2008/217 and 2008/218.   We also respectfully remind you that your report on "enhanced cooperation" which was presented to the ECOSOC has been referred by the ECOSOC to the CSTD for its prior consideration.  This suggests that ECOSOC would normally prefer CSTD's views on issues of WSIS follow up before it considers them.   Absent any reason for a departure from established practice, we therefore believe that your report and recommendations should be presented to the CSTD to enable widest possible discussion and engagement of all actors with this very important issue.   Thank you for your consideration of this suggestion, for your leadership, and for your ongoing support of civil society's participation at the Internet Governance Forum. --  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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 25 11:28:30 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:28:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Multistakeholderism & the new Citizenship In-Reply-To: <4B869053.5060500@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <519977.91113.qm@web83914.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> I am a citizen of the spaceship Earth. I owe my allegiance to no government. I owe my allegiance to the planet and to all those that populate it.   I am not ready to go that far. I was born just a few years after world war II. But I think that I am leaning toward a dual citizenship. I want to be a part of the global solutions that are on the Horizon. I do not like the boundaries of accident of birth. But I dang sure do no want my new citizenship to be contingent on being a member of a club. --- On Thu, 2/25/10, Parminder wrote: From: Parminder Subject: [governance] Multistakeholderism (was Parminder's exchange with Bertrand) To: "Bertrand de La Chapelle" Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" , "Milton L Mueller" , "Wolfgang" Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 2:59 PM Bertrand (and others) I have carefully gone through your analysis (and that of others). However I could find no situation, or rather no governance requirement, that cannot  be  met within a 'democratic governance' framework, with all the cutting edge work being done in the areas of deepening democracy, deliberative democracy, decentralization (increasing application of the principle of subsidiarity), stakeholder consultation/ participation etc. I do see that the context of global governance throws new challenges  - especially of scale and complexity/ multiplicity of issues. However, I find it perfectly possible to address these new situations through exploration of the 'democratic governance' framework we all know, and are acquainted with the history and the philosophical/ normative basis of. Therefore, the principle question in this discussion is; why do we abandon an evolutionary 'democratic governance'  framework in favour of a completely new 'multistakeholder governance framework'? Democratic governance has a clear ethical basis in equality of all human beings who are expected to relate and interact with each other on terms of equality. I would like to similarly hear about the first principles of this new form 'MS'ism'. ( Bertrand, I do see that you refer to MS-ism as an intermediate stage towards more open and democratic systems. However (1) this implied transition from one kind of democratic system through an MS system - whose conformity to democratic principles is very questionable - to a higher stage of democratic system is conceptually and practically very unclear, and apparently untenable, to me, and (2) during some earlier discussions a few other now involved in this debate - e.x. Jeanette and Avri - had positioned 'Ms-ism' as an alternative and not a step to more democratic systems. ) I do understand and accept that elements of issue-centred governance at the global level bring forth a different requirement/ manner of alignment of actors which situation may have partly led to the MS terminology. However, I think that this situation is perfectly possible to be addressed through evolutionary forms of 'democratic governance'. i would like to engage on this line of discussion more but let me shift to another point, which is perhaps more important to deal with, and if possible get out of way, in discussing MS-ism. This is the issue of the legitimacy and status of big business in policy making in the new MS-kind of governance models. As I see it, most people who are for deepening democracy (and other evolutionary forms of democracy) will easily be with the MS crowd but for the latter's deep silences and/ or ambiguity on this one issue.  It quite amazes me how we are able to do such long discussions on MS-ism without discussing this key, in fact, the central issue, which divides  civil society. How well we manage to ignore this gorilla in the room. Is it not one of the primary questions for a civil society group to address when discussing MS-ism?? Why such silences on this question? We all know that the one group that has gained completely new legitimacy at policy tables due to MS-ism is the business sector. And it is also the sector which, at all places where MS-ism is practised, has by far taken the most advantage (often, all the advantage). Citizen groups and civil society actors always had some kind of legitimate claims to policy making spaces, even if the real practice of deep democracy remained a deeply contested arena. (For instance, UN still have no official process to involve business actors in its processes while there is a long history of CS involvement.) In any case, deepening democracy precisely deals with increasing CS participation in the processes of governance. Why do we need to carry the big business in our laps to the policy table in advocating MS-ism rather than deepening democracy? In the light of above, I would like to understand from those who advocate MS-ism, how do they see business, especially big business (which almost completely dominates business seats at policy tables), which simply represents the interests of 'capital', a non-human entity if there was one, as an legitimate actor  at policy table, in equality with those who represent interests of real people and groups of people. I do expect to hear that interests of 'capital' are really the interests of shareholders and thus of real people. Maybe. But a basic tenet of democratic governance is equality of participation. Democratic governance is supposed to provide an counter (political) force to undue/ excessive domination of some over others. MSism enables exactly the opposite  - it gives the more powerful ever more political power. This is against the basic principles and practices of democracy. Democratic governance aims at upholding public interest, which no doubt consists of multiple private interests but in some important ways rises above it. MS-ism is a naked negotiation based on power. Little surprise that it often employs the language of economic contracts even for things which are apparently political (reminds me of an old email of Bill's on ICANN policy making process). Lets accept it. MS-ism is the preferred governance system of neo-liberalism, which aims at reducing every social institution to something as close to a market system as possible. MS's march is the march of neoliberalism. It is obvious that one cannot attain a huge degree of economic (and cultural) integration of the world without some concomitant enhanced global governance systems. Developed countries are afraid that any promotion of democratic political systems at the global level would work - as democratic power is supposed to work - as a check to their undue dominance through still greater economic and cultural imperialism. This new thing - MS-ism - serves them well. Big business is still overwhelmingly developed countries based. There is a new state-business alliance which needs to be confronted. MSism rather than confronting it, promotes it. Thats is what it is for me. I will be glad to hear refutations, and counter logics. (Avri, we are moving towards post military-industrial state-business compacts, and while fighting one we cannot help create the other, most likely, a much more virulent version. Present dominances are mostly based on controlling financial systems and flows, and we are moving towards dominances that would be primarily IP-control based helped along with control over techno-social infrastructure. That is why democratic governance of Internet is important, and that is why correspondingly, developed country's and big business' enthusiasm for neolib MSism in this area.)  If the illegitimate route to political power that MS-ism affords to big business is somehow taken out, MS-ism for me is a form of deepening democracy, which is one of the principle aims and areas of work of my organization. MSism as practised, however, seeks to supplant elements of political discourse and practise native to democracy - public interest, public sphere, conflict of interest, equality, human rights, social justice etc. It seeks to take us to a pre-democratic era where political systems were built on the basis of power that an actor already possessed in the society. This power is now expressed through the 'power to participate' and influence. What was earlier back room business lobbying has now got new legitimacy and respectability, and correspondingly more power. That is how a post-democratic MS governance system really works. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion.  "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too.  The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph  : MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters.  Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with).  However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation.  Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests.  In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.    This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place.  I hope this helps move the discussion forward.  Best Bertrand PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis.    On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:  Second, We need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for good governance and appropriate institutions; I don't understand why. MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. jeanette jea In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. ________________________________________ From: Parminder [parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing Jeanette and Bertrand, First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be because of this procedural part. However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my 'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement friendly and  not developed countries? Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls within their own territories. Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society (dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of IGF, with no consideration to the fact that 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to which it does so. 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make recommendations where necessary. I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive issue in the email. para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or >No question. Section 74 of TA reads "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options for the convening of the Forum ..........' and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized structure that would be subject to periodic review". Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in fact, into the oblivion. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is all. I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and operational organization of the Forum. In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental multi-stakehoder nature. The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. Best Bertrand -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") ____________________________________________________________  You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:    governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From roland at internetpolicyagency.com Thu Feb 25 11:59:57 2010 From: roland at internetpolicyagency.com (Roland Perry) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:59:57 +0000 Subject: [governance] GOOGLE and italian judgement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: In message , at 02:33:02 on Thu, 25 Feb 2010, f.cortiana at provincia.milano.it writes >Waiting for the motivation I think that the question of "privacy" needs to be >defined in a self-regulatory code made by a multistakeholders process. > European directive on electronic commerce has explicitly called on member >states to do this but until now the Italian government has not done anything >and the risk that we run is that the policy is replaced by the Courts' >judgments. Courts are pesky things, which try to assert independence of government on a day to day basis. We haven't seen the reason for this judgement yet, but it will presumably make some reference to the Italian's transposition of the E-Commerce Directive, and explain how it all fits together. -- 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 william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Thu Feb 25 12:31:42 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:31:42 +0100 Subject: R: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2E135@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2E135@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> Message-ID: <22EF8E77-39D5-42AC-A0EE-6CB4B06E875F@graduateinstitute.ch> Hi She's very deserving (as was Oliver Williamson). At the same time, it's hard not to have mixed feelings about political scientists being tossed into the economics category by the Nobel folks, who apparently think no other social science merits consideration. Especially since economism (or at least the institutionalized fetishism thereof) has done such thorough damage to political science. Cheers, Bill On Feb 25, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: > Bernard, > thanks for reporting the books of Elinor Ostrom. I've had the honor and the pleasure to write the preface to the Italian edition of her book "Understanding Knowledge As a Commons" so it was nice to see her rewarded with the Nobel Prize > > ciao > > Fiorello > > Da: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] > Inviato: giovedì 25 febbraio 2010 13.44 > A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria > Oggetto: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > > Dear all, > > An important element in this debate would be to introduce the intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their corresponding governance mechanisms. > > The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the commons" paper is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we call stakeholders) can develop common governance frameworks for the management of common resources. > > Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the spirit is clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems as between state regulation of the commons and privatization/market mechanisms. > > I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all participants in this discussion to read "Governing the Commons" and "Understanding Institutional Diversity", two of her seminal books on this issue. > > More on that later when I have thee time. > > Best > > Bertrand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From MWong at piercelaw.edu Thu Feb 25 15:43:58 2010 From: MWong at piercelaw.edu (Mary Wong) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:43:58 -0500 Subject: R: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <22EF8E77-39D5-42AC-A0EE-6CB4B06E875F@graduateinstitute.ch> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> <95227A668FFBB141A238AE53582A8E11E2E135@VEXNODE2.man.provincia.mi.it> <22EF8E77-39D5-42AC-A0EE-6CB4B06E875F@graduateinstitute.ch> Message-ID: <4B869ABE0200005B00050760@BRENNAN> Her work is also and increasingly heavily cited by a small but growing group of law professors and academics (including those working with the Creative Commons movement) who are concerned about the over-extending ("enclosure") of intellectual property rights to private owners. It was definitely educational for me to read her work, when writing about crafting a human rights (rather than private property-based) framework for copyright and other intellectual property. Cheers Mary Mary W S Wong Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs Franklin Pierce Law Center Two White Street Concord, NH 03301 USA Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu Phone: 1-603-513-5143 Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >>> From: William Drake To:, "Fiorello Cortiana" Date: 2/25/2010 12:30 PM Subject: Re: R: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Hi She's very deserving (as was Oliver Williamson). At the same time, it's hard not to have mixed feelings about political scientists being tossed into the economics category by the Nobel folks, who apparently think no other social science merits consideration. Especially since economism (or at least the institutionalized fetishism thereof) has done such thorough damage to political science. Cheers, Bill On Feb 25, 2010, at 2:12 PM, Fiorello Cortiana wrote: Bernard, thanks for reporting the books of Elinor Ostrom. I've had the honor and the pleasure to write the preface to the Italian edition of her book "Understanding Knowledge As a Commons" so it was nice to see her rewarded with the Nobel Prize ciao Fiorello Da: Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] Inviato: giovedì 25 febbraio 2010 13.44 A: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria Oggetto: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Dear all, An important element in this debate would be to introduce the intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their corresponding governance mechanisms. The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the commons" paper is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we call stakeholders) can develop common governance frameworks for the management of common resources. Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the spirit is clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems as between state regulation of the commons and privatization/market mechanisms. I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all participants in this discussion to read "Governing the Commons ( http://www.amazon.com/Governing-Commons-Evolution-Institutions-Collective/dp/0521405998/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267101669&sr=1-3 )" and "Understanding Institutional Diversity ( http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Institutional-Diversity-Elinor-Ostrom/dp/0691122385/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267101721&sr=1-1 )", two of her seminal books on this issue. More on that later when I have thee time. Best Bertrand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Thu Feb 25 16:25:21 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:25:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <844826.43370.qm@web33007.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <889003.24283.qm@web83904.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Friend,   It is said in law and in debate and in government:  He who defines the issue wins.   Do not delude yourself into thinking what your priorities are, are "the track".  I assume you meant no insult, but by claiming that another is "off track" you either are showing ignorance or arrogance.   Perhaps you mean to say "I would like to see the discussion go in this direction"  Your comments remind me of the mother who while watching the children march says "Why is everyone out of step except my son?"   The and I mean THE only right track is free and open exchange of ideas. --- On Thu, 2/25/10, Imran Ahmed Shah wrote: From: Imran Ahmed Shah Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: mueller at syr.edu, parminder at itforchange.net, wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de, "Imran Ahmed Shah" , cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net, bdelachapelle at gmail.com, jeanette at wzb.eu Date: Thursday, February 25, 2010, 2:37 PM Re-submitted Message:   Dear IGC and UN/IGF Members, I think the discussion regarding Multi-Stakeholder (MS) as a member of IGF/MAG or IGC" will remain open ended (because it is going off the track). However, it may have a positive resolution, only when the discussion ends with a proposal which have any positive impact on the framework of IGF (by coming on the right track). Let me explain that how it can be. We are going out of track when we discuss about the definition of Stake holders, Multi-Stake Holders or try to find out their stakes if they belongs to internet governance. (e.g. discussing that how ILO has multiple groups and multiple stakes. Right, rather then this, (the discussion should bring) right on the track by defining that does IGF membership includes the participation from Multiple types of the Stakes Holders? If not, how this can become possible? I think the IGF needs re-construction of its framework. (As I also have proposed during last survey). IGF of United Nations should have at least following three Groups (instead of single MAG):- 1. First Group: Representation of Governments of all Member Countries/Territories of the United Nations. They will act like Force Implementation of the UN/IGF Policies, rules and regulations (in their countries) and to arrange to provide Funds requred for Implementation (+ICT Policies). 2. Second Group: Representations of Technology Experts and Policy Implementer(s) from the Commercial and Non-Commercial Organizations, Institutions, Groups or Societies. They will not only help to prepare best policies but also extend the policies and implementation process in the community up to the end user (public: citizen or netizen). 3. Third Group: Representatives of Public, Societies, Communities or Individuals as a User where the Policies Implementation will have  direct impact. The membership ratio can be 30%+30%+40% respectively. The members of IGC can become part of these groups. These three groups may have: Tree different mailing List + Discussion Forum and One common mailing list and Discussion Forum. These groups will participate for policies development and implementation for Internet Governance. There should be at least three Directors and three coordinators of UN/IGF and permanently based at IGF Office.  Membership of these Groups may become open for all when this model is approved by the UNSG. I hope that this proposed framework may resolve many issues and will have a very positive impact on the UN/IGF fundamental theme. Thanking you and Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah [ICANNian since Oct'09] [  +92 300 4130617  +92 300 4130617 ] From: Imran Ahmed Shah To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net; bdelachapelle at gmail.com; jeanette at wzb.eu Cc: mueller at syr.edu; parminder at itforchange.net; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; ias_pk at yahoo.com Sent: Thu, 25 February, 2010 1:58:17 Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Dear(s) The discussion started to define the definition of the type of Multi-Stakeholder as a member of IGF/MAG or IGC will remain open ended (because it is going off the track). However, it may have a positive resolution of discussion, if the proposal also have positive impact on the framework of IGF by coming on the right track. Let me explain (how it can) in a seperate discussion thread as "Proposed Framework". Thanks Imran Ahmed Shah On Wed Feb 24th, 2010 7:35 PM PKT Eric Dierker wrote: >Sometimes taking and usurping the natural and general use of a word and creating labels of classes is a very bad thing. For longer than otherwise "person" did not include slave or lady. The use of "stakeholder" is definately meant to create a group class distinction. >  >But what do I know - the world changes: Yahoo translated today English to Spanish - Shoeshine boy to this -- >Pronounced: leem-pee-ah-bóh-tahs Type: noun Example: Los limpiabotas casi han desaparecido de la vida moderna. Translation: Shoeshine boys have almost disappeared fro...:::: I promise you limpia is not shine and botas is not shoe. >So maybe today a "Stakeholder" is only a member of an elite class of people and definately not users or dotcommoners.  > >--- On Wed, 2/24/10, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > >From: Bertrand de La Chapelle >Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Jeanette Hofmann" >Cc: "Milton L Mueller" , "Parminder" , "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" >Date: Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 12:38 PM > > >Dear all, > > >Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with Karl Auerbach on this topic. > > >"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is still structured very much in this way, with what I have often described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion.  > > >"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too.  > > >The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure that this perspective is taken into account > in the discussions even if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and structures may have a specific role to play here. . > > >This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to the last bit of the paragraph  : >MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual that matters.  > > >Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, governance should be based on the right for any actor, including individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in (is impacted by or concerned with).  > > >However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance is the generalization at the international level of the kind of representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President or even Parliament is not the solution. > > >This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its different perspectives carried forward in international discussions by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the employees of companies in an industry that has to support an important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global regime will impact their jobs > and therefore want the said company or its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and scientific analysis, which requests expert participation.  Etc... On such global topics, individuals have in fact several stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is not the mere aggregation of national public interests.  > > >In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the issue, the venue and the state of the discussion.    > > >This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place.  > > >I hope this helps move the discussion forward.  > > >Best > > >Bertrand > > >PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. >   > > >On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > Second, We > >need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for >good governance and appropriate institutions; > >I don't understand why. > > >MS is at best a > >transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental >toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this >progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is >- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the >artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, >business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual >that matters. > >I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions of it. >The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. >jeanette > >jea > > > >In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > > > > >the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is >used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow >does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but >not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. > >________________________________________ From: Parminder >[parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy >Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] >REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > >Jeanette and Bertrand, > >First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed >countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have >forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal >point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am >sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be >because of this procedural part. > >However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my >'analysis of motivation  of governments' that made the mentioned >interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but >the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can >hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. >Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper >analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder >nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them >'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, >and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in >this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not >have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? >Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And >why  at WIPO and WTO  developing countries are more-NGO involvement >friendly and  not developed countries? > >Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, >therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand >that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities >for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control >over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with >stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is >little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great >advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off >excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping >the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing >countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political >domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls >within their own territories. > >Developed  countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >developing countries  want  the  IGF  to  have  more  substantive >role  in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy >regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place >holder. Developed countries  seem  not  interested  in  furthering >the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community >supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society >(dominated by North based/ oriented actors).   The latter two also >have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of >IGF, with no consideration to the fact that > >1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy >making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to >which it does so. > >2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make >recommendations where necessary. > >I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following >assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive >issue in the email. > > >para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the >continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly >revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get >into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and >operational organization of the Forum. > > >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >more than the Yes or >No question. > >Section 74 of TA reads > >"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options >for the convening of the Forum ..........' > >and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized >structure that would be subject to periodic review". > >Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate >the mandate of the IGF,  the 'administrative and operational >organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. > >In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it >closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds >(things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, >some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more >effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is >made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). > >I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to >get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable >the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there >is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review >debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is >needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive >changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in >fact, into the oblivion. > >Parminder > > >Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, > >Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking >of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up >to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report >give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not >that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more >vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening >MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations >really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first >assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the >proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is >all. > >I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of >discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in >Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. > >The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, >which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of >the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments >only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important >role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been >organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions >"the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of >the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation >Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >administrative and operational organization of the Forum. > >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, >which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, >because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only >the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for >ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the >possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how >to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >multi-stakehoder nature. > >The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to >preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > >Best > >Bertrand > >-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour >la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information >Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French >Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting >humans") ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any >message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >   governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle >Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society >Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry >("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > >-----Inline Attachment Follows----- > > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >     governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: >     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:     governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -----Inline Attachment Follows----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 25 18:35:08 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:35:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Thanks, Massit-Follea for a more nuanced approach to Ostrom. Ostrom does not romanticize "the commons" (though many of her acolytes do); she does not categorize ALL resources as common pool resources but restricts it to those that involve exclusive appropriation but difficulty of exclusion; she does not deny the existence of the tragedy of the commons but asserts that it can be overcome not only through private property (to which she is not hostile) but also by collective governance arrangements. Ostrom is very pragmatic and empirical in her approach to governance arrangements. Actually as a positive theorist (as opposed to a normative one) her approaches and ideas could just as well be used by any side in the internet governance debates. In a paper I present in late March at the European Communications Policy Research Conference I do an institutional analysis of ip addressing which relies on some of her concepts. --MM ________________________________________ From: massit follea [f.massit at orange.fr] Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:26 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Dear all list-members, deepening Bertrand's reference : Elinor Ostrom is speaking about "stable LOCAL common property resource management" as 1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties); 2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources adapted to local conditions; 3. Collective-choice arrangements allowing most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process; 4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators; 5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules; 6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution cheap and of easy access; 7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level authorities; 8. In the case of larger common-pool resources: organization in the form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the base level. … Elinor Ostrom: « Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action ». Cambridge University Press. 1990. p.90, and « Understanding Institutional Diversity ». Princeton, Princeton University Press. 2005. p.259 F Massit-Folléa ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Thu Feb 25 19:00:15 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 01:00:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> <55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD3@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <954259bd1002251600r6a030ac6oa3d97f55c31952b9@mail.gmail.com> Hi Milton, What is your view on the application of the notion of CPR to the domain name space. One thing to consider in particular is that - even if there is the possibility of 63 character strings in new gTLDs - the real pool of interesting strings is much more limited : Top Level domains are more desirable if they are short strings with high semantic meaning. In each language, they are much less numerous than the number of letter combinations and therefore collectively represent a scarce resource. Basically, .golf is probably more valuable than .djufoelksocnqipplkidpfnabchwyuding. In that context, what would be the equivalent of overexploitation of the resource pool ? a too rapid allocation of the most precious names ? B. On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > Thanks, Massit-Follea for a more nuanced approach to Ostrom. > > Ostrom does not romanticize "the commons" (though many of her acolytes do); > she does not categorize ALL resources as common pool resources but restricts > it to those that involve exclusive appropriation but difficulty of > exclusion; she does not deny the existence of the tragedy of the commons but > asserts that it can be overcome not only through private property (to which > she is not hostile) but also by collective governance arrangements. Ostrom > is very pragmatic and empirical in her approach to governance arrangements. > Actually as a positive theorist (as opposed to a normative one) her > approaches and ideas could just as well be used by any side in the internet > governance debates. > > In a paper I present in late March at the European Communications Policy > Research Conference I do an institutional analysis of ip addressing which > relies on some of her concepts. > > --MM > ________________________________________ > From: massit follea [f.massit at orange.fr] > Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:26 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Bertrand de La Chapelle > Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > > Dear all list-members, > > deepening Bertrand's reference : Elinor Ostrom is speaking about "stable > LOCAL common property resource management" as > 1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled > parties); > 2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources > adapted to local conditions; > 3. Collective-choice arrangements allowing most resource appropriators > to participate in the decision-making process; > 4. Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to > the appropriators; > 5. A scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who > violate community rules; > 6. Mechanisms of conflict resolution cheap and of easy access; > 7. Self-determination of the community recognized by higher-level > authorities; > 8. In the case of larger common-pool resources: organization in the > form of multiple layers of nested enterprises, with small local CPRs at the > base level. … > > Elinor Ostrom: « Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for > Collective Action ». Cambridge University Press. 1990. p.90, and « > Understanding Institutional Diversity ». Princeton, Princeton University > Press. 2005. p.259 > > F Massit-Folléa > > > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 25 19:06:09 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:06:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> I forgot to highlight one of the most important observations here wrt to Ostrom and collective governance, which is this: ________________________________________ > 1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties); In other words, even if you are dealing with something governed as a "commons," in almost all cases there must be boundaries and effective exclusion for that governance form to work. A simple example: there are "common beaches" in the shore areas of New Jersey in the U.S., but those beaches are commons ONLY for people who are citizens of the towns and villages abutting them. This is so for obvious reasons - if you are not a member of that community you have no right to access the beach, and protecting the quality and viability of the shore is the responsibility of the community that owns it, for open access would allow people with little stake in the beaches to despoil them and crowd out the people who live there. A true "open access commons" in which there is no exclusion whatsoever is quite rare, although it does exist and is quite relevant to information resources in the public domain. But information of course is non rival in consumption and therefore not what Ostrom defines as a common pool resource. People who romanticize commons governance, especially by counterposing it to private property, typically ignore the fact that both forms of governance require "clearly defined boundaries and effective exclusion." The only difference is that in one case the unit of ownership and decision making is the individual household, person or firm, and in the other case it is a larger collectivity. Those who say that either form of governance is inherently superior to the other are anti-empirical; both have advantages, and either can operate better in certain circumstances. To tie this back to Parminder, based on his latest post I can see where we part ways as well as agree. Parminder has decided that people acting as political collectivities are inherently superior to people acting as private market actors or businesses. Probably he is operating under the delusion that political/democratic processes are inherently guided by a public interest logic whereas private market action is driven by private interest which is inherently opposed to public interest. I disagree. Politicians and political parties have self-interest and can exploit. Competitive market processes can promote the public interest. I think people are people, and they need both political processes and economic maximizing processes to survive, and both serve as appropriate checks on each other. To me, democracy without liberalism is just mob rule, just as capitalism without law, rights and democracy is lousy. So while we agree strongly on extending democratic governance modes into the global arena we probably have radically different ideas about how to do it. If you designate "neo-liberalism" as the main enemy I don't think you understand very well the real challenges of global governance. However, getting back to Ostrom and collective governance, even if you extend democracy beyond the nation-state you still have to decide what is the relevant community for governance decisions. The people who are always yammering about how good and noble it is to be group-oriented or collective oriented, and ridiculing those of us who talk about the individual, always seem to forget that communities have boundaries, and some of the world's worst crimes come not from individuals attacking or exploiting each other, but from groups - states, ethnicities, religions, etc. - defining other groups as excluded and "the other." No individual, no private, profit-maximizing corporation, could ever produce anything like WW 2 and its national and ethnic carnage. --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 mueller at syr.edu Thu Feb 25 19:19:10 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 19:19:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu>, Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD6@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> >I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of possible panaceas, >for those are but classes of snake oil that are meant to cure all ills. > And Multistakeholder governance (MSG - i think of MS as multiple sclerosis) MSG = Monosodium Glutamate, a nasty chemical that bad chinese restaurants put in their food. > I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself and as a stage > in the evolving development of governance systems. It represents progress > over the nation-state, bi and multi-lateral modalities. Didn't I already agree heartily with this? > It also moves us beyond the pure top down or pure bottom up models. > In its best form it allows for persons, both natural and otherwise, to form > into self regulated interest and affinity groupings and allows them, as > members of these groups, and with their individual voices, to participate > as peers in the critical governance activities, including talk, capacity > building, action, regulation and enforcement. This form of governance has been discussed and analyzed for years before the MS-word came along. There are other, more appropriate words for it. > I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes this important > stage in governance development. I worry mostly that this diminution plays > into the hands of those who want to remain in, and bolster the legitimacy of, > the older variants of the Westfalian military-industrial sovereign state - > whether this is their intention or not. OK, point taken. I do not want to do that. But my fear is that MS-ism represents a fragile and easy target for advocates of those "older variants" and also that sovereign states are actively using the rhetoric of MS (as Parminder pointed out) in a highly selective fashion for strategic purposes. So in the very short-term, perhaps I shouldn't bad-mouth MSG in view of the IGF renewal. I certainly favor a MS IGF over a normalized UN-driven one. But let's not confuse this short term tactical issue with our long term goals. --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 parminder at itforchange.net Fri Feb 26 05:14:00 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:44:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B879EE8.5030401@itforchange.net> Bertrand Now if Multistakeholderism is Elinor Ostrom style commons management, can I please enlist as its enthusiastic supporter :) But the sad fact is that MS-ism which we experience and are discussing is not it at all anything close to commons style management- rather more often quite to the contrary. Let me give you a very handy example. Try proposing any commons management stuff for the IGF program and see where it goes in the MAG - the multistakeholder body. You may know that open source, open content, A2K, community networks (also in the last MAG meeting) and such topics have fared very badly in such MS environments. The whole basis, principles and practises of commons management are very different. I dont think it is at all fair to present high policy level MS-ism as we experience around us today in terms of such commons management. I took a look at Ostrom's framework of commons resource management forwarded by Massit. The very first point deals with 'exclusion', and she must have had a very ood reason to do it. 'Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties)' Is it then that a shareholder (and any proxy of his 'interests') from hundreds/ thousands of miles away, who most likely doesnt even fully know where and what for exactly his money is invested, is to be excluded from 'governance mechanisms'. That is great. This makes the MS framework - if still MS it is - very acceptable to me. But first let me ask you, does this principle work to exclude large businesses organised over global share capital from MS systems, since the interests of such share capital has no real, embedded and 'live' interest in any 'issue' at all, which seems to be the first requirement for participaiton in the Ostrom's framework? If so, we are on the same page. I convert to being a full supporter of MSism. Also, Ostrom's system has a strong place for commonly evolved rules. I have never been able to understand how an MS system - the kinds that get spoken of on this list - ever develops any rules at all. Would also like to know more in this regard. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > An important element in this debate would be to introduce the > intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in > Economics 2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their > corresponding governance mechanisms. > > The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the commons" > paper is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we call > stakeholders) can develop common governance frameworks for the > management of common resources. > > Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the spirit is > clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems as between > state regulation of the commons and privatization/market mechanisms. > > I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all participants > in this discussion to read "Governing the Commons > " > and "Understanding Institutional Diversity > ", > two of her seminal books on this issue. > > More on that later when I have thee time. > > Best > > Bertrand > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Avri Doria > wrote: > > hi, > > I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of possible > panaceas, for those are but classes of snake oil that are meant to > cure all ills. And Multistakeholder governance (MSG - i think of > MS as multiple sclerosis) does not belong in the category. > > I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself and as > a stage in the evolving development of governance systems. It > represents progress over the nation-state, bi and multi-lateral > modalities. It also moves us beyond the pure top down or pure > bottom up models. In its best form it allows for persons, both > natural and otherwise, to form into self regulated interest and > affinity groupings and allows them, as members of these groups, > and with their individual voices, to participate as peers in the > critical governance activities, including talk, capacity building, > action, regulation and enforcement. > > I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes this > important stage in governance development. I worry mostly that > this diminution plays into the hands of those who want to remain > in, and bolster the legitimacy of, the older variants of the > Westfalian military-industrial sovereign state - whether this is > their intention or not. > > a. > > > On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > Milton L Mueller wrote: > > > >> One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently > articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations > of collective governance. It drastically overstates the > capabilities and scope of global governance and pushes forward > participation as the answer to everything. > > > > Who does this and where? > > The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending > evaluation of the IGF, not as a panacea per se. > > > >> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can > all agree and solve all problems. > > > > Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the > implications of a forum without binding decision-making capacity here. > > > > But that it isn't consistent with what we know > >> about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In > order to be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I > should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. > The whole point of "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely > to shield groups and individuals from unwanted "governance" by others. > > > > With regard to free expression perhaps although free expression > needs rules as well in order to work. Even this list has rules > specifying limits of unwanted behavior. > > > > jeanette > >> --MM > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle > [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com ] > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM > >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org > ; Jeanette Hofmann > >> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang > >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > >> Dear all, > >> Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are > >> ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and > "multi-stakeholders" > >> that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous > exchanges with > >> Karl Auerbach on this topic. > >> "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or > four, or > >> five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : > governments, > >> civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). > >> According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance > looks a > >> little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) > with the > >> three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, > >> each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is > >> still structured very much in this way, with what I have often > >> described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real > >> interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and > >> "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : > >> "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. > "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in > >> particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie > >> incorporated structures, be they public authorities, > corporations or > >> NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the > participation of > >> individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not > need to > >> be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to > >> participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder > >> governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful > >> example with its open registration policy that allows > >> individuals. Important established structures (governments, > >> businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making > >> processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. > The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the > >> decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such > >> individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily > groups of > >> people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be > required > >> to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the > >> classical question : but who do they really represent ? is > moot, and > >> akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person > with > >> something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it > >> informs the processes and the general understanding of an > issue. The > >> purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most > comprehensive > >> manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors > who have a > >> stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white > man from > >> a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the > >> challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to > ensure > >> that this perspective is taken into account in the > discussions even > >> if no "representative" from such communities is present. > However, > >> actual representatives of the different interests are needed > in the > >> decision-making phase that follows, and established > institutions and > >> structures may have a specific role to play here. . > >> This leads to a better understanding of > "multi-stakeholderism". In > >> this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, > up to > >> the last bit of the paragraph : > >> MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion > from purely > >> intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms > of global > >> governance. In this progression, we need to have a > clearer idea > >> of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of > >> perfect global governance the artificial division of society > >> into "estates" such as "government, business and civil > society" > >> no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. > Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic > >> form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be > artificially > >> divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent > their > >> interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory > Group for > >> the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, > >> governance should be based on the right for any actor, including > >> individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the > >> governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a > stake in > >> (is impacted by or concerned with). However, > multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as > >> necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder > groups, > >> each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. > >> Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global > governance > >> is the generalization at the international level of the kind of > >> representative democracy that already reaches some limits at > lower > >> scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World > President > >> or even Parliament is not the solution. > >> This is why we must consider the different structures or > groups that > >> individuals participate in as vectors of the representation > of their > >> diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes > in an > >> issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from > having its > >> different perspectives carried forward in international > discussions > >> by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental > >> issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized > versus > >> others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and > therefore > >> want their government to actively defend their rights. But > conscious > >> of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a > whole, > >> they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions > to exert > >> some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as > maybe the > >> employees of companies in an industry that has to support an > >> important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the > global > >> regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said > company or > >> its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may > want to > >> ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and > >> scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. > Etc... On > >> such global topics, individuals have in fact several > >> stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A > >> major one, but only one of them, as the global public > interest is > >> not the mere aggregation of national public interests. > In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including > >> governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our > understanding > >> of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo > approach, > >> and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all > stakeholders > >> can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say > >> "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on > specific > >> issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective > >> roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according > to the > >> issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. This > means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, > >> issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making > >> (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation > (agency, > >> monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major > >> laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this > list, as > >> exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not > the main > >> one, where the political theory discussion can actually take > place. I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best > >> Bertrand > >> PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann > > >> >> wrote: > >> Second, We > >> need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" > as our > >> label for > >> good governance and appropriate institutions; > >> I don't understand why. > >> MS is at best a > >> transitional phase implying a motion from purely > >> intergovernmental > >> toward a more open, democratic forms of global > governance. > >> In this > >> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what > the end > >> point is > >> - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global > governance the > >> artificial division of society into "estates" such as > >> "government, > >> business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the > >> individual > >> that matters. > >> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of > global > >> governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and > >> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual > freedom only. > >> What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic > "rules > >> for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in > >> common that respects both, individual and collective > dimensions > >> of it. > >> The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate > way of > >> capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many > >> times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who > >> interact in the form of contracts with each other?) > looks like > >> an impoverished notion of regulation and political > rule-making > >> to me. > >> jeanette > >> jea > >> In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers > >> the double standard at work in the MS discourse, > noting how > >> MS is > >> used to fend off certain political actors in this > context > >> but somehow > >> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about > >> process but > >> not substance, and policy substance is what matters > ultimately. > >> ________________________________________ From: Parminder > >> [parminder at itforchange.net > > >> >] Sent: Sunday, February > >> 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> >; Jeremy > >> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: > >> [governance] > >> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing > >> Jeanette and Bertrand, > >> First of all I must apologize that I did not read > the open > >> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of > >> developed > >> countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. > I must have > >> forgotten that part from their interventions because > there > >> principal > >> point was procedural which I found particularly > forceful. > >> And I am > >> sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that > >> would be > >> because of this procedural part. > >> However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email > speaks about my > >> 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made > the mentioned > >> interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much > >> motivation but > >> the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke > >> about, I can > >> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of > >> motivation'. > >> Political motivations are generally a subject > requiring deeper > >> analysis, and while I do agree that developing > countries are > >> interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the > >> multi-stakeholder > >> nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this > makes them > >> 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global > political > >> stage, > >> and developing countries correspondingly more > closed. One > >> may ask in > >> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such > secrecy. > >> Why not > >> have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and > >> negotiations? > >> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed > >> currently? And > >> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO > >> involvement > >> friendly and not developed countries? > >> Where support for multistakeholderism starts and > where it > >> ends is, > >> therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I > >> understand > >> that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit > >> possibilities > >> for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues > >> because control > >> over the techno-social infrastructure of the > Internet, along > >> with > >> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for > global > >> domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF > >> which is > >> little more than an annual conference on IG, and > which has > >> this great > >> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - > >> letting off > >> excess steam vis a vis desires for political > participation > >> in shaping > >> the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately > >> developing > >> countries mostly have not woken up to the global > >> eco-socio-political > >> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist > >> controls > >> within their own territories. > >> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it > is. Many > >> developing countries want the IGF to have more > >> substantive > >> role in global IG regimes, along with a specific > Internet > >> policy > >> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant > to be the > >> place > >> holder. Developed countries seem not interested in > >> furthering > >> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the > technical community > >> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many > among civil > >> society > >> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The > latter > >> two also > >> have often supported the case for weak, annual > conference, > >> nature of > >> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that > >> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global > >> Internet policy > >> making, and its effectiveness can only be measured > by the > >> extent to > >> which it does so. > >> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate > to IGF > >> to make > >> recommendations where necessary. > >> I make the above analysis because I do not agree > with the > >> following > >> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key > substantive > >> issue in the email. > >> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the > desirability > >> of the > >> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG > >> should mainly > >> revolve around the >question : continuation Yes > or No ? > >> and not get > >> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the > >> administrative and > >> operational organization of the Forum. > >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for > the UN > >> General > >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only > bodies) > >> to discuss > >> more than the Yes or >No question. > >> Section 74 of TA reads > >> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a > range of > >> options > >> for the convening of the Forum ..........' > >> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and > decentralized > >> structure that would be subject to periodic review". > >> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not > >> renegotiate > >> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and > operational > >> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to > review and > >> change. > >> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes > >> (taking it > >> closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek > other kinds > >> (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more > focused > >> agenda, > >> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, > better and more > >> effective connections to forums where substantive > Internet > >> policy is > >> made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality > etc). > >> I also think that to ensure that progressive forces > are not > >> able to > >> get together to demand the kind of changes that are > needed > >> to enable > >> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really > >> effective, there > >> is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in > the "IGF > >> review > >> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the > IGF' > >> than is > >> needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong > posturing and > >> sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more > progressive > >> changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the > >> background, in > >> fact, into the oblivion. > >> Parminder > >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, > >> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke > were not > >> thinking > >> of multistakeholderism but underlying their > objections was a > >> different politics. They suspect China (along with some > >> others) is up > >> to some games here, and more open consideration of > UN SG's > >> report > >> give them a better chance to put their views in more > >> solidly, not > >> that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. > Also, some > >> governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC > obviously > >> are more > >> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, > since > >> weakening > >> MS process was not what the government who spoke at the > >> consultations > >> really spoke about, and all the concerned actors > know this, > >> our first > >> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke > >> about the > >> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going > through CSTD, > >> that is > >> all. > >> I must correct this : preserving the > multi-stakeholder spirit of > >> discussions was clearly in the minds of most > governments who > >> spoke in > >> Geneva to support having the report presented to the > CSTD. > >> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an > Internet > >> Governance forum came principally from the > discussions of > >> the WGIG, > >> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the > >> mandate of > >> the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by > >> governments > >> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have > played an > >> important > >> role in its definition - the functioning of the > Forum itself > >> has been > >> organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder > process > >> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis > Agenda > >> mentions > >> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the > >> recommendations of > >> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : > >> continuation > >> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the > >> mandate or the > >> administrative and operational organization of the > Forum. > >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the > UN General > >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only > bodies) to > >> discuss > >> more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to > self-organize, > >> which has made the IGF what it is today, must be > preserved. > >> The CSTD, > >> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of > WSIS, is > >> not only > >> the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft > resolutions for > >> ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure > that has the > >> possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of > >> actors on how > >> to make the IGF even better without changing its > fundamental > >> multi-stakehoder nature. > >> The governments who have spoken have indeed done so > in order to > >> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. > >> Best > >> Bertrand > >> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué > >> Spécial pour > >> la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information > >> Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et > Européennes/ French > >> Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 > (0)6 11 > >> 88 33 32 > >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les > hommes" > >> Antoine de > >> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for > humans than > >> uniting > >> humans") > >> > ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any > >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> ____________________________________________________________ > >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > >> > > >> For all list information and functions, see: > >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >> Translate this email: > http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >> -- ____________________ > >> Bertrand de La Chapelle > >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special > Envoy for > >> the Information Society > >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French > Ministry of > >> Foreign and European Affairs > >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" > Antoine de > >> Saint Exupéry > >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From correia.rui at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 07:19:02 2010 From: correia.rui at gmail.com (Rui Correia) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:19:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] South Africa: Hate speech on Facebook can be prosecuted, Court rules Message-ID: Dear All Those who generate, or allow hate speech to be posted on Facebook, can be prosecuted in SA, even though the servers are hosted outside the country, lawyers say. A post calling for the killing of white people was posted recently on the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) Facebook page. Group administrator Anwar Adams has refused to take the post down. http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30808&catid=182&A=EBU&S=Legal%20View&O=E&E=correia.rui at gmail.com http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30804&catid=182&A=EBU&S=Legal%20View&O=E&E=correia.rui at gmail.com -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 08:28:29 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:28:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B879EE8.5030401@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> <4B879EE8.5030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: In respect of this discussion I find it very interesting to consider Jose Ortega y Gasset's observations on the shifts in pattern of European society in the 1920s as he documents them in The Revolt of the Masses. I was working on a paper about this for GIGAnet last year. Although this is long before the Internet it seems to me that there are useful parallels for a consideration of governance. Deirdre On 26 February 2010 06:14, Parminder wrote: ... > > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jeremy at ciroap.org Fri Feb 26 08:37:00 2010 From: jeremy at ciroap.org (Jeremy Malcolm) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:37:00 +0800 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on letter to UNSG Message-ID: The results of the consensus call are 81 supporting the letter, and one abstaining. The one abstention actually appears as a "No" response, but the intent to abstain was clarified in private email to me. In any case, this is a very clear favourable consensus. I have a list of the voters and their votes, and will put it up on the Web site, along with the text of the resolution, shortly. In the meantime I can email that list to anyone interested as a CSV file. I will also liaise with Ginger about transmitting the letter to the UNSG. Thanks everyone for your participation! -- Jeremy Malcolm Project Coordinator Consumers International Kuala Lumpur Office for Asia Pacific and the Middle East Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 CI is 50 Consumers International marks 50 years of the global consumer movement in 2010. Celebrate with us as we continue to support, promote and protect consumer rights around the world. http://www.consumersinternational.org/50 Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Fri Feb 26 08:40:22 2010 From: ca at cafonso.ca (Carlos A. Afonso) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 10:40:22 -0300 Subject: [governance] Results of consensus call on letter to UNSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B87CF46.8050106@cafonso.ca> Good work, Jeremy! --c.a. Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > The results of the consensus call are 81 supporting the letter, and one > abstaining. The one abstention actually appears as a "No" response, but > the intent to abstain was clarified in private email to me. In any > case, this is a very clear favourable consensus. > > I have a list of the voters and their votes, and will put it up on the > Web site, along with the text of the resolution, shortly. In the > meantime I can email that list to anyone interested as a CSV file. I > will also liaise with Ginger about transmitting the letter to the UNSG. > > Thanks everyone for your participation! > > -- > > * 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 gpaque at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 08:47:04 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:17:04 -0430 Subject: OFFLIST Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on letter to UNSG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4B87D0D8.8020508@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From williams.deirdre at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 08:52:07 2010 From: williams.deirdre at gmail.com (Deirdre Williams) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:52:07 -0400 Subject: OFFLIST Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on letter to In-Reply-To: <4B87D0D8.8020508@paque.net> References: <4B87D0D8.8020508@paque.net> Message-ID: Also it seems important that we should all remember in the language used that the moderation is a joint effort as compared with the interventions of individual members. Deirdre On 26 February 2010 09:47, Ginger Paque wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > Great job! Note: we should avoid use of the word vote in any form on a > consensus call... be ready to clarify. I know it is just a slip of the > fingers, and your meaning is very clear. But to avoid "confusion" on the > list, I think it is best... no voters and votes, but members and responses > to the call for consensus. > > Thanks! Best, gp > > Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > The results of the consensus call are 81 supporting the letter, and one > abstaining. The one abstention actually appears as a "No" response, but the > intent to abstain was clarified in private email to me. In any case, this > is a very clear favourable consensus. > > I have a list of the voters and their votes, and will put it up on the > Web site, along with the text of the resolution, shortly. In the meantime I > can email that list to anyone interested as a CSV file. I will also liaise > with Ginger about transmitting the letter to the UNSG. > > Thanks everyone for your participation! > > -- > > *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 > -- “The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gpaque at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 08:55:27 2010 From: gpaque at gmail.com (Ginger Paque) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:25:27 -0430 Subject: (OFFLIST) Re: [governance] Results of consensus call on letter In-Reply-To: <4B87D0D8.8020508@paque.net> References: <4B87D0D8.8020508@paque.net> Message-ID: <4B87D2CF.3080103@paque.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 26 12:12:06 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:12:06 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] South Africa: Hate speech on Facebook can be prosecuted, Court rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <455717.50933.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> It is good that we have 500 years of jurisprudence to deal with just such matters.   Anyone care to give definitions for the following using strictly 2010 data?   1. Writer 2. Publisher 3. Re-publisher 4. Editor   Clearly the new Internet requires new regulations that set standards for legal and industrial compliance. In olden views if A said D was a whore, and B repeated it to C -- Then both A&B were "guilty" of Defamation. Likewise if A paper published B saying D was a whore and new damn well that D was not,,,, both BandA could be "guilty" of defamation. Of course truth does not change the defamation but simply is a defense. Now when this list monitors and censors content and then republishes my defamatory remarks regarding A --- well as it stands now the list is at least liable. --- On Fri, 2/26/10, Rui Correia wrote: From: Rui Correia Subject: [governance] South Africa: Hate speech on Facebook can be prosecuted, Court rules To: Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 12:19 PM Dear All Those who generate, or allow hate speech to be posted on Facebook, can be prosecuted in SA, even though the servers are hosted outside the country, lawyers say. A post calling for the killing of white people was posted recently on the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) Facebook page. Group administrator Anwar Adams has refused to take the post down. http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30808&catid=182&A=EBU&S=Legal%20View&O=E&E=correia.rui at gmail.com http://www.itweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30804&catid=182&A=EBU&S=Legal%20View&O=E&E=correia.rui at gmail.com -- ________________________________________________ Rui Correia Advocacy, Human Rights, Media and Language Consultant Angola Liaison Consultant 2 Cutten St Horison Roodepoort-Johannesburg, South Africa Tel/ Fax (+27-11) 766-4336 Mobile (+27) (0) 84-498-6838 _______________ áâãçéêíóôõúç ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Fri Feb 26 12:22:13 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:22:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <28AA94C4-059C-4BE9-BD5F-4E796E2204DF@psg.com> On 26 Feb 2010, at 01:06, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The people who are always yammering about how good and noble it is to be group-oriented or collective oriented, and ridiculing those of us who talk about the individual, always seem to forget that communities have boundaries, and some of the world's worst crimes come not from individuals attacking or exploiting each other, but from groups - states, ethnicities, religions, etc. - defining other groups as excluded and "the other." No individual, no private, profit-maximizing corporation, could ever produce anything like WW 2 and its national and ethnic carnage. you have got to be kidding. maybe it depends on the type of historiography one is partial to and as far as i can tell unless one believes in the relatively marxist historical moment sort of historical explanation, one is stuck with the great man of history explanation. as far as i can tell most of the horrors of history have been caused by individuals, one a monster and the rest committing themselves to following along with the leader, the great man (always a man) of history. it is individuals, natural and corporate, who commit all the crimes - at the boundary of the individual is where murder, rape and mayhem occur. and it i the behest of the corporate person that most thievery occurs. but without an individual in his very own individual voice or very own trigger finger nothing like WW2 or Vietnam or Iraq or .... could ever happen. as one of those who yammer about groups being the only way to go there is always the requirement that the individuals (the ultimate source of behavior) behave ethically and that they have to leave the group or engage in civil disobedience or more when the group goes strays from the ethical path. each person always remains responsible for her behavior - not matter what the great man tries to make us do. 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 12:38:25 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:38:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B879EE8.5030401@itforchange.net> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> <4B879EE8.5030401@itforchange.net> Message-ID: <954259bd1002260938n6a8c834bvd999e7aef3a3d51a@mail.gmail.com> Dear Parminder, I'm glad to see a high level of awareness and support on this list regarding E. Ostrom's work. Some comments inline (another long post, sorry :-). On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Parminder wrote: > Bertrand > > Now if Multistakeholderism is Elinor Ostrom style commons management, can I > please enlist as its enthusiastic supporter :) > As Françoise Massit-Follea reminded us, E. Ostrom's key 7 fundamental building blocks for Common Pool Resources Governance Frameworks (8 if you take into account the possibility of "nested" regimes) are in my view extremely adaptable to many issues we are dealing with here, particularly the management of critical Internet resources. I actually have been in contact with Elinor Ostrom no later than last week in the context of the upcoming Transparency and Accountability AoC review of ICANN and she explicitly confirmed that "Yes, the internet domain name system could be productively thought of as a CPR." > But the sad fact is that MS-ism which we experience and are discussing is > not it at all anything close to commons style management- rather more often > quite to the contrary. > > Let me give you a very handy example. Try proposing any commons management > stuff for the IGF program and see where it goes in the MAG - the > multistakeholder body. You may know that open source, open content, A2K, > community networks (also in the last MAG meeting) and such topics have fared > very badly in such MS environments. The whole basis, principles and > practises of commons management are very different. I dont think it is at > all fair to present high policy level MS-ism as we experience around us > today in terms of such commons management. > As indicated above, the CPR approach being very appropriate for the CIR topic, it could easily be introduced in the program. I believe in particular that a workshop would be very appropriate in Vilnius on a theme like : *"The Domain Name System as Common Pool Resource (CPR) : * *what consequences for its governance framework ?"* It would clearly bring new perspectives in a key debate that people are now ready to have seriously. If people on this list want to take the initiative to organize it (or a similar title), count me in, Id be very happy to contribute. > > > I took a look at Ostrom's framework of commons resource management > forwarded by Massit. The very first point deals with 'exclusion', and she > must have had a very ood reason to do it. > > 'Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled > parties)' > The notion of "exclusion" or "defined parties" is very important and I would relate it to the notion of "relevant stakeholders" discussed in a previous post. As mentioned earlier, Multi-stakeholder Governance is neither about siloed "stakeholder groups" (the dialogue space must be unique, even if various groups form to prepare discussions), nor about just organized entities (per Karl's remarks : individuals must not be excluded in principle). If, as I believe, MSG is based on "the right for any actor or individual to participate, in an appropriate manner, in the governance mechanisms dealing with issues they have a stake in or are impacted by", then E. Ostrom criteria of defined boundaries is respected. The "appropriate manner" in which the different actors participate should correspond in some ways to the stake they have in the issue. One could even envisage that there also is a duty to participate for actors who have an impact on an issue, even if they do not spontaneously want to (topic example here in our domain is large social networks, conspicuously absent from the IGF). Of course, the precise modalities need to be more clearly defined. But the fundamental affirmation in the first CPR governance principle is that governance frameworks work well if there is a sufficient delineation of who belongs to an "Action Situation" and who does not. The challenge is to make sure that there are no free riders (people who should be involved and be subjects to the collective rules of "appropriation and provision" but try to stay out to maximize their gains), no disenfranchised (actors who should be taken into account but are not invited), but also no useless participants (who have no direct or indirect stake). > > Is it then that a shareholder (and any proxy of his 'interests') from > hundreds/ thousands of miles away, who most likely doesnt even fully know > where and what for exactly his money is invested, is to be excluded from > 'governance mechanisms'. That is great. This makes the MS framework - if > still MS it is - very acceptable to me. > I am afraid a bit of anticapitalist rethoric is carrying you further than you want. First of all, because you lump in the same basket the predatory practices of heartless financial vultures (they do exist) and the perfectly fine, useful and necessary mechanisms through which companies do get the money they need to provide their services. You can't seriously be treating them in the same way. Second, because the multi-stakeholder philosophy, if you accept to give it some credit, applies potentially as a governance paradigm at multiple levels, in a nested manner. Nothing prevents you from using this lever towards companies themselves, to encourage/press/force them to include their "relevant stakeholders" (customers, employees, providers, but also governments, general citizens, etc...) in their decision-making processes. Isn't it what trade unions or NGO activists are asking in the first place. Your discarding a tool that potentially works in your favor is surprising. A topical example here is the discussion we had in the EuroDiG last year and in the workshop on "Governance of Social Media" in Sharm regarding the importance of the *large social media sites'* *"Terms of Service"*, that basically serve as "the law of the space" (for instance the Facebook or YouTube Terms of Service clearly define most of what you can and cannot do on this "virtual territory" (ie as long as you are within the "frontiers" of the domain name - that is : on the closed space of the site). A multi-stakeholder approach here would point towards such large sites associating their users, and maybe other actors, in the refinement of these rules instead of drafting them as corporate internal stuff and having afterwards to back off because of their customers' (or political actors') reactions. Community sites like ebay, facebook and others are moving - albeit slowly - in that direction. I had a very interesting exchange in Sharm with the Prosecutor for the State of Sao Paolo who was leading the case regarding Orkut. He was very open to the idea for instance of establishing, inside such social sites, multi-stakeholder advisory groups (MAGs !) composed of representatives from law enforcement agencies, civil rights NGOs, users, etc... who would assist the company in the treatment of delicate cases of "notice and take down" regarding user-posted content. To come back to the point further above, I agree that today, corporate governance is too often about responsibility to shareholders only, as if companies were mere financial black-boxes, and people should only care about how much money is put in and how much comes out. The current stock-market driven perception of corporations and the related social pressures are a disgrace to the spirit of entrepreneurship. And yes, entrepreneur is a french word :-) As a former successful entrepreneur, I can testify that the rationale for creating a company is not only financial, but mostly to do something you find exciting, provide a service you think people need or invent a completely new activity. > But first let me ask you, does this principle work to exclude large > businesses organised over global share capital from MS systems, since the > interests of such share capital has no real, embedded and 'live' interest in > any 'issue' at all, which seems to be the first requirement for > participaiton in the Ostrom's framework? If so, we are on the same page. I > convert to being a full supporter of MSism. > Sorry, you lose me here. If you have read E. Ostrom's analysis of water systems in various regions, you know that water companies were full stakeholders in the corresponding CPR systems regarding the water basins. If companies have what she describes as "appropriator rights" (ie : are allowed to pump), don't you think that they have an "embedded, live interest" in the preservation of the water pool ? If a large fishing company (maybe with international capital) has fishing rights in a zone or for a specific type of fish, don't you think they have an "embedded, live" interest in the long-term preservation of the fish pool ? Finally, do you really prefer the government cartel mechanism that rules oil resources, to a global governance system for oil resources that would include all actors, including oil companies, to ensure long-term sustainability, and more stable prices that do not harm developing countries ? Let's remember that a significant part of the debt burden of africa is an indirect result of the oil shocks that forced them to borrow heavily in order to develop exports that could cover the higher price of oil. So, instead of considering that by definition business is the devil that should in any case be excluded from any sort of governance mechanism, why not consider that MS mechanisms can in fact re-empower various actors, including governments, citizens and civil society, to make sure that corporations do not escape their responsibilities. > > Also, Ostrom's system has a strong place for commonly evolved rules. I have > never been able to understand how an MS system - the kinds that get spoken > of on this list - ever develops any rules at all. Would also like to know > more in this regard. > I have no perfect answer. However, the two embryonic, experimental, tentative efforts that the IGF and ICANN represent are in my view the two laboratories for discovering how this can be done. I've repeatedly said that the *IGF's outcome is for a large part its format*: an experiment in MS dialogue and MS interaction. It does not produce rules yet, but in E. Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD), her "Grammar of institutions" helps define a unifying syntax (ADICO) for rules, norms and strategies. Without delving too much in detail at the moment, my understanding is that the IGF currently allows actors to synchronise strategies and better avoid prisoner's dilemma type of situations. If the IGF moves forward in time and helps shape recommendations, this corresponds to the category of norms in the AICO framework (prescriptions without sanctions). The difference between a norm and a rule in this approach is the so-called OR ELSE (ie : what happens if the collective norm is not respected :punition, and enforcement thereof). It is not the purpose of the IGF to get to any enforcement capacity or to develop rules. But ICANN, in a very limited domain, is one of the first experiments of a multi-stakeholder international Agency (even potential regulator for the "semantic spectrum") with some power to sanction (even if it does not use it as it should). this organization, with all its faults, is indeed faced with the obligation to design decision-making procedures and rule-enforcement mechanisms. Rather than throwing away the very concept of multi-stakeholder governance - the introduction of which in a UN summit declaration the IGC should actually consider as its own major success - there is much more to gain in trying to build on the fragile experiments to move towards whatever future governance framework is needed. Hope this helps Best Bertrand > > Parminder > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Dear all, > > An important element in this debate would be to introduce the intellectual > framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in Economics 2009) > regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their corresponding governance > mechanisms. > > The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the commons" paper > is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we call stakeholders) can > develop common governance frameworks for the management of common > resources. > > Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the spirit is > clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems as between state > regulation of the commons and privatization/market mechanisms. > > I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all participants in > this discussion to read "Governing the Commons" > and "Understanding Institutional Diversity", > two of her seminal books on this issue. > > More on that later when I have thee time. > > Best > > Bertrand > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Avri Doria wrote: > >> hi, >> >> I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of possible >> panaceas, for those are but classes of snake oil that are meant to cure all >> ills. And Multistakeholder governance (MSG - i think of MS as multiple >> sclerosis) does not belong in the category. >> >> I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself and as a stage >> in the evolving development of governance systems. It represents progress >> over the nation-state, bi and multi-lateral modalities. It also moves us >> beyond the pure top down or pure bottom up models. In its best form it >> allows for persons, both natural and otherwise, to form into self regulated >> interest and affinity groupings and allows them, as members of these >> groups, and with their individual voices, to participate as peers in the >> critical governance activities, including talk, capacity building, action, >> regulation and enforcement. >> >> I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes this important >> stage in governance development. I worry mostly that this diminution plays >> into the hands of those who want to remain in, and bolster the legitimacy >> of, the older variants of the Westfalian military-industrial sovereign >> state - whether this is their intention or not. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > >> >> One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently articulated is >> that it seems to have no grasp of the limitations of collective governance. >> It drastically overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance >> and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. >> > >> > Who does this and where? >> > The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending evaluation >> of the IGF, not as a panacea per se. >> > >> >> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we can all agree >> and solve all problems. >> > >> > Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the implications >> of a forum without binding decision-making capacity here. >> > >> > But that it isn't consistent with what we know >> >> about human nature, and free expression is a good example. In order to >> be able to publish a controversial message on my blog, I should not have to >> gain the collective assent of 7 billion people. The whole point of >> "governance" in that area, imho, is precisely to shield groups and >> individuals from unwanted "governance" by others. >> > >> > With regard to free expression perhaps although free expression needs >> rules as well in order to work. Even this list has rules specifying limits >> of unwanted behavior. >> > >> > jeanette >> >> --MM >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com] >> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM >> >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann >> >> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand >> >> Dear all, >> >> Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are >> >> ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" >> >> that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with >> >> Karl Auerbach on this topic. >> >> "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or >> >> five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : governments, >> >> civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). >> >> According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a >> >> little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the >> >> three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, >> >> each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is >> >> still structured very much in this way, with what I have often >> >> described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real >> >> interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and >> >> "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : >> >> "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. >> "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in >> >> particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations only* (ie >> >> incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or >> >> NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of >> >> individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to >> >> be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to >> >> participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder >> >> governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful >> >> example with its open registration policy that allows >> >> individuals. Important established structures (governments, >> >> businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and decision-making >> >> processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. The >> corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the >> >> decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such >> >> individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of >> >> people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required >> >> to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the >> >> classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and >> >> akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with >> >> something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it >> >> informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The >> >> purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive >> >> manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a >> >> stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from >> >> a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the >> >> challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure >> >> that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even >> >> if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, >> >> actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the >> >> decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and >> >> structures may have a specific role to play here. . >> >> This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In >> >> this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to >> >> the last bit of the paragraph : >> >> MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely >> >> intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global >> >> governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea >> >> of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of >> >> perfect global governance the artificial division of society >> >> into "estates" such as "government, business and civil society" >> >> no longer exists; it is the individual that matters. Yes, >> what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic >> >> form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially >> >> divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their >> >> interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for >> >> the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, >> >> governance should be based on the right for any actor, including >> >> individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the >> >> governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in >> >> (is impacted by or concerned with). However, >> multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as >> >> necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, >> >> each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. >> >> Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance >> >> is the generalization at the international level of the kind of >> >> representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower >> >> scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President >> >> or even Parliament is not the solution. >> >> This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that >> >> individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their >> >> diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an >> >> issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its >> >> different perspectives carried forward in international discussions >> >> by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental >> >> issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus >> >> others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore >> >> want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious >> >> of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, >> >> they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert >> >> some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the >> >> employees of companies in an industry that has to support an >> >> important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global >> >> regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or >> >> its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to >> >> ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and >> >> scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On >> >> such global topics, individuals have in fact several >> >> stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A >> >> major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is >> >> not the mere aggregation of national public interests. In such a >> perspective, the challenge for all of us, including >> >> governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding >> >> of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, >> >> and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders >> >> can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say >> >> "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific >> >> issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective >> >> roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the >> >> issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. This means >> designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, >> >> issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making >> >> (verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, >> >> monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major >> >> laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as >> >> exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main >> >> one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. >> I hope this helps move the discussion forward. Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann < >> jeanette at wzb.eu >> >> > wrote: >> >> Second, We >> >> need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our >> >> label for >> >> good governance and appropriate institutions; >> >> I don't understand why. >> >> MS is at best a >> >> transitional phase implying a motion from purely >> >> intergovernmental >> >> toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. >> >> In this >> >> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end >> >> point is >> >> - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance >> the >> >> artificial division of society into "estates" such as >> >> "government, >> >> business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the >> >> individual >> >> that matters. >> >> I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global >> >> governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and >> >> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. >> >> What we are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules >> >> for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. A life in >> >> common that respects both, individual and collective dimensions >> >> of it. >> >> The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of >> >> capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many >> >> times, but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who >> >> interact in the form of contracts with each other?) looks like >> >> an impoverished notion of regulation and political rule-making >> >> to me. >> >> jeanette >> >> jea >> >> In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers >> >> the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how >> >> MS is >> >> used to fend off certain political actors in this context >> >> but somehow >> >> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about >> >> process but >> >> not substance, and policy substance is what matters >> ultimately. >> >> ________________________________________ From: Parminder >> >> [parminder at itforchange.net >> >> ] Sent: Sunday, February >> >> 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> ; Jeremy >> >> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: >> >> [governance] >> >> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >> >> Jeanette and Bertrand, >> >> First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >> >> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of >> >> developed >> >> countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must >> have >> >> forgotten that part from their interventions because there >> >> principal >> >> point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. >> >> And I am >> >> sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that >> >> would be >> >> because of this procedural part. >> >> However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about >> my >> >> 'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the >> mentioned >> >> interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much >> >> motivation but >> >> the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke >> >> about, I can >> >> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of >> >> motivation'. >> >> Political motivations are generally a subject requiring >> deeper >> >> analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >> >> interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the >> >> multi-stakeholder >> >> nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes >> them >> >> 'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political >> >> stage, >> >> and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One >> >> may ask in >> >> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. >> >> Why not >> >> have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and >> >> negotiations? >> >> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed >> >> currently? And >> >> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO >> >> involvement >> >> friendly and not developed countries? >> >> Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it >> >> ends is, >> >> therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I >> >> understand >> >> that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit >> >> possibilities >> >> for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues >> >> because control >> >> over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along >> >> with >> >> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >> >> domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF >> >> which is >> >> little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has >> >> this great >> >> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - >> >> letting off >> >> excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation >> >> in shaping >> >> the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately >> >> developing >> >> countries mostly have not woken up to the global >> >> eco-socio-political >> >> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist >> >> controls >> >> within their own territories. >> >> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >> >> developing countries want the IGF to have more >> >> substantive >> >> role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet >> >> policy >> >> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the >> >> place >> >> holder. Developed countries seem not interested in >> >> furthering >> >> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical >> community >> >> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil >> >> society >> >> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter >> >> two also >> >> have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, >> >> nature of >> >> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that >> >> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global >> >> Internet policy >> >> making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the >> >> extent to >> >> which it does so. >> >> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF >> >> to make >> >> recommendations where necessary. >> >> I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the >> >> following >> >> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key >> substantive >> >> issue in the email. >> >> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability >> >> of the >> >> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG >> >> should mainly >> >> revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? >> >> and not get >> >> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >> >> administrative and >> >> operational organization of the Forum. >> >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN >> >> General >> >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) >> >> to discuss >> >> more than the Yes or >No question. >> >> Section 74 of TA reads >> >> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of >> >> options >> >> for the convening of the Forum ..........' >> >> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and >> decentralized >> >> structure that would be subject to periodic review". >> >> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not >> >> renegotiate >> >> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational >> >> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and >> >> change. >> >> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes >> >> (taking it >> >> closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other >> kinds >> >> (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused >> >> agenda, >> >> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and >> more >> >> effective connections to forums where substantive Internet >> >> policy is >> >> made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). >> >> I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not >> >> able to >> >> get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed >> >> to enable >> >> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really >> >> effective, there >> >> is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF >> >> review >> >> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' >> >> than is >> >> needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >> >> sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more >> progressive >> >> changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the >> >> background, in >> >> fact, into the oblivion. >> >> Parminder >> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, >> >> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not >> >> thinking >> >> of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >> >> different politics. They suspect China (along with some >> >> others) is up >> >> to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's >> >> report >> >> give them a better chance to put their views in more >> >> solidly, not >> >> that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >> >> governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously >> >> are more >> >> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since >> >> weakening >> >> MS process was not what the government who spoke at the >> >> consultations >> >> really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, >> >> our first >> >> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke >> >> about the >> >> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, >> >> that is >> >> all. >> >> I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder >> spirit of >> >> discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who >> >> spoke in >> >> Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. >> >> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >> >> Governance forum came principally from the discussions of >> >> the WGIG, >> >> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the >> >> mandate of >> >> the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by >> >> governments >> >> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an >> >> important >> >> role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself >> >> has been >> >> organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >> >> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda >> >> mentions >> >> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the >> >> recommendations of >> >> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : >> >> continuation >> >> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the >> >> mandate or the >> >> administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >> >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN >> General >> >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to >> >> discuss >> >> more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to >> self-organize, >> >> which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. >> >> The CSTD, >> >> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is >> >> not only >> >> the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions >> for >> >> ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has >> the >> >> possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of >> >> actors on how >> >> to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >> >> multi-stakehoder nature. >> >> The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order >> to >> >> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué >> >> Spécial pour >> >> la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the >> Information >> >> Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ >> French >> >> Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 >> >> 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" >> >> Antoine de >> >> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than >> >> uniting >> >> humans") >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >> >> To be removed from the list, send any >> >> message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- ____________________ >> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >> >> the Information Society >> >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >> >> Foreign and European Affairs >> >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >> >> Saint Exupéry >> >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the > Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint > Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Fri Feb 26 12:44:30 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:44:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <28AA94C4-059C-4BE9-BD5F-4E796E2204DF@psg.com> Message-ID: <262540.27765.qm@web83915.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Try these sayings on for size:   bad things happen when good groups do nothing   The ------ party was the greatest president of all   Guns do not kill people groups do   Theirs was a voice crying all alone in the wilderness   And a real perfect one for Mueller;;;  Christians did not cause the crusades it was that man Christ....  Wait even better,,, We followed Muslims into battle not Mohammed.   Probably the group versus individual distinction shows that it is neither --- but rather ideas are to exhalt and disdain not humans. Therefor it is only clear to determine that both groups and individuals are worthy of a place at our table, for as here it was individuals within our group and outside of it that produced the most recent statement. --- On Fri, 2/26/10, Avri Doria wrote: From: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand To: "IGC" Date: Friday, February 26, 2010, 5:22 PM On 26 Feb 2010, at 01:06, Milton L Mueller wrote: > The people who are always yammering about how good and noble it is to be group-oriented or collective oriented, and ridiculing those of us who talk about the individual, always seem to forget that communities have boundaries, and some of the world's worst crimes come not from individuals attacking or exploiting each other, but from groups - states, ethnicities, religions, etc. - defining other groups as excluded and "the other." No individual, no private, profit-maximizing corporation, could ever produce anything like WW 2 and its national and ethnic carnage. you have got to be kidding. maybe it depends on the type of historiography one is partial to and as far as i can tell unless one believes in the relatively marxist historical moment sort of historical explanation, one is stuck with the great man of history explanation.  as far as i can tell most of the horrors of history have been caused by individuals, one a monster and the rest committing themselves to following along with the leader, the great man (always a man) of history. it is individuals, natural and corporate, who commit all the crimes - at the boundary of the individual is where murder, rape and mayhem occur.  and it i the behest of the corporate person that most thievery occurs. but without an individual in his very own individual voice or very own trigger finger nothing like WW2 or Vietnam or Iraq or .... could ever happen. as one of those who yammer about groups being the only way to go  there is always the requirement that the individuals (the ultimate source of behavior)  behave ethically and that they have to leave the group or engage in civil disobedience or more  when the group goes strays from the ethical path.  each person always remains responsible for her behavior - not matter what the great man tries to make us do. a.____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Feb 26 15:22:27 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 21:22:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.co m> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20100226202304.AF0BF91F47@npogroups.org> Bertrand, Very interesting analysis. From work carried on the actors of language and multilinguistic issues in cyberspace (i.e. an highly people oriented set of targets, based on complex technical issues) one may also consider a different set of stakes. Instead of considering who the people are and how they are organized, it is interesting to consider their motivations and their capacity to reach their goals within the cyberdiversity context. This leads to consider at least: 1) three motivation/capacity economies: - the economy of the people looking for a salary (of any kind). They will usually manage the community interests along the criteria of who pays and backs them. Their operational process is usually "incremental" looking for a minimization of the risks. - the economy of the people wanting to move things to their own best financial, political, notoriety, fun, power, etc. etc. interests. They usually are initially "disruptive", try to be positive enough to become stable and rewarding enough for those who want to join and help them on a salary basis. - the economy of the people volunteering a contribution. The adminance being understood as what permits what a governance manages, their contribution has to be structurally/educationally/locally (Governance) and/or architecturally/operationally/globally (Adminance) worth enough for their share in the community return to permit them to survive and pursue, also to justify to their own eyes the personal cost of their gift. 2) three capacity levels, i.e. the results that may be credibly obtained. - The incremental process is what permits an adaptative "status quo" in a developing technical, political, commercial and social context. - The disruptive process is what permits some to become market leaders or even transient monopolies and intellectually politically correct. - The architectural (technical and social) process is what decides where one should be a leader to best serve and hence for the service to sustainably develop. The mix of these motivations and capacities seems also to well describe the world digital ecosystem governance and adminance landscape (the Internet is only a part of it). Historically, the adminance (IAB, IANA, IETF) was assumed by volunteers. Then ICANN came to manage the governance as if was a staff oriented resurrection of former communications Gov. monopolies. Google, FaceBook, etc. and most of the governance activists are on the business or intellectual disruptive side. IMHO the current situation is affected by an Adminance evolution (IPv6; BGPs, IDNA2008, ROAP) of a real magnitude. This corresponds to the decenial technological change cycle of the international datanetwork (Tymnet, ISO, Internet): this time the only new candidate technology is the "Internet 1.2" that we observe technically shaping itself, the Governance has not yet perceived the emergence. Yet this is the only chance we have to meet the (http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/) millennium development goals (I must say that I searched my three years old archives of this mailing list for the words "millenium" and "millennium" and I only found five mails). And probably to keep the Internet running without degradation. jfc At 13:38 24/02/2010, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Dear all, > >Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, there are >ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and "multi-stakeholders" >that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous exchanges with >Karl Auerbach on this topic. > >"Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three (or four, or >five ...) "stakeholder groups" or constituencies : governments, >civil society, business (plus technical community, and IGOs). >According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" governance looks a >little bit like the ILO (International Labor organization) with the >three constituencies of governments, employers and trade unions, >each in their respective structures. in a certain way, ICANN is >still structured very much in this way, with what I have often >described as the "silo structure" that too often prevent real >interaction among actors. The two notions : "stakeholders" and >"stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : >"stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. > >"Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in >particular) as meaning institutional organizations only (ie >incorporated structures, be they public authorities, corporations or >NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the participation of >individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does not need to >be the case and that individuals should have the possibility to >participate with appropriate modalities in multi-stakeholder >governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a very useful >example with its open registration policy that allows individuals. >Important established structures (governments, businesses, NGOs) >with internal consultation and decision-making processes are >relevant stakeholders, but individuals too. > >The corollary of the participation of individuals is that in the >decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, such >individuals can represent viewpoints and not necessarily groups of >people. Provided they are contributing, they should not be required >to demonstrate specific representation credentials (hence the >classical question : but who do they really represent ? is moot, and >akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any person with >something to contribute should be allowed to do so because it >informs the processes and the general understanding of an issue. The >purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most comprehensive >manner, taking into account the perspective of all actors who have a >stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old white man from >a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge of the >challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and try to ensure >that this perspective is taken into account in the discussions even >if no "representative" from such communities is present. However, >actual representatives of the different interests are needed in the >decision-making phase that follows, and established institutions and >structures may have a specific role to play here. . > >This leads to a better understanding of "multi-stakeholderism". In >this context, Milton actually presents a very valid vision, up to >the last bit of the paragraph : >MS is at best a transitional phase implying a motion from purely >intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic forms of global >governance. In this progression, we need to have a clearer idea of >what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect >global governance the artificial division of society into "estates" >such as "government, business and civil society" no longer exists; >it is the individual that matters. > >Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a truly open, democratic >form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be artificially >divided into separate estates that are too rigid and prevent their >interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group for >the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). And yes, >governance should be based on the right for any actor, including >individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the >governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has a stake in >(is impacted by or concerned with). > >However, multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as >necessarily meaning interaction between separate stakeholder groups, >each drafting their own statements to reconcile them later on. >Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global governance >is the generalization at the international level of the kind of >representative democracy that already reaches some limits at lower >scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a World President >or even Parliament is not the solution. > >This is why we must consider the different structures or groups that >individuals participate in as vectors of the representation of their >diverse interests. A single individual has different stakes in an >issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from having its >different perspectives carried forward in international discussions >by a diversity of actors. To take the example of environmental >issues, citizens do not want their country to be penalized versus >others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, and therefore >want their government to actively defend their rights. But conscious >of the future challenges for their family or the planet as a whole, >they may want an activist NGO to be part of the discussions to exert >some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, as maybe the >employees of companies in an industry that has to support an >important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that the global >regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the said company or >its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they may want to >ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and >scientific analysis, which requests expert participation. Etc... On >such global topics, individuals have in fact several >stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of them. A >major one, but only one of them, as the global public interest is >not the mere aggregation of national public interests. > >In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including >governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our understanding >of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo approach, >and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all stakeholders >can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say >"collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" on specific >issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the "respective >roles" of the different stakeholders should vary according to the >issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. > >This means designing processes for decision-shaping (agenda-setting, >issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making >(verification of consensus, validation), and implementation (agency, >monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the two major >laboratories where this discussion takes place. And this list, as >exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if not the main >one, where the political theory discussion can actually take place. > >I hope this helps move the discussion forward. > >Best > >Bertrand > >PS : the above comments are of course made on a personal basis. > > >On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette Hofmann ><jeanette at wzb.eu> wrote: > > Second, We >need to stop habitually using "multi-stakeholderism" as our label for >good governance and appropriate institutions; > > >I don't understand why. >MS is at best a >transitional phase implying a motion from purely intergovernmental >toward a more open, democratic forms of global governance. In this >progression, we need to have a clearer idea of what the end point is >- and MS is not it. In a world of perfect global governance the >artificial division of society into "estates" such as "government, >business and civil society" no longer exists; it is the individual >that matters. > > >I completely disagree with a solely individual notion of global >governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not rest and refer >to, at least not necessarily, on individual freedom only. What we >are all arguing about here concerns democratic "rules for a life in >common", as a colleague once put it. A life in common that respects >both, individual and collective dimensions of it. >The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most fortunate way of >capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has said many times, >but to give it up and replace it by individuals (who interact in the >form of contracts with each other?) looks like an impoverished >notion of regulation and political rule-making to me. >jeanette >jea >In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers >the double standard at work in the MS discourse, noting how MS is >used to fend off certain political actors in this context but somehow >does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS is about process but >not substance, and policy substance is what matters ultimately. >________________________________________ From: Parminder >[parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: >Sunday, February 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: >governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeremy >Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams Subject: Re: [governance] >REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >Jeanette and Bertrand, >First of all I must apologize that I did not read the open >consultation transcripts well. Indeed the governments of developed >countries who spoke on the issue did mention MS-ism. I must have >forgotten that part from their interventions because there principal >point was procedural which I found particularly forceful. And I am >sure that if we are indeed effective in our appeals that would be >because of this procedural part. >However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email speaks about my >'analysis of motivation of governments' that made the mentioned >interventions, while I clarify that it was not so much motivation but >the tactical aspects of their intervention that I spoke about, I can >hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of 'analysis of motivation'. >Political motivations are generally a subject requiring deeper >analysis, and while I do agree that developing countries are >interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the multi-stakeholder >nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that this makes them >'naturally' more open and democratic at the global political stage, >and developing countries correspondingly more closed. One may ask in >this context why ACTA is being negotiated in such secrecy. Why not >have multistakeholder involvement in its drafting and negotiations? >Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed currently? And >why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are more-NGO involvement >friendly and not developed countries? >Where support for multistakeholderism starts and where it ends is, >therefore, a question of deep political motivations. I understand >that developed countries want, at this stage, to limit possibilities >for more democratic global policy forums on IG issues because control >over the techno-social infrastructure of the Internet, along with >stronger IP regimes, underpin their new strategy for global >domination. This works well with promoting of a weak IGF which is >little more than an annual conference on IG, and which has this great >advantage of acting as the perfect co-option device - letting off >excess steam vis a vis desires for political participation in shaping >the emergent techno-social infrastructure. Unfortunately developing >countries mostly have not woken up to the global eco-socio-political >domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms of statist controls >within their own territories. >Developed countries want the IGF to carry on as it is. Many >developing countries want the IGF to have more substantive >role in global IG regimes, along with a specific Internet policy >regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was meant to be the place >holder. Developed countries seem not interested in furthering >the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the technical community >supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many among civil society >(dominated by North based/ oriented actors). The latter two also >have often supported the case for weak, annual conference, nature of >IGF, with no consideration to the fact that >1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping global Internet policy >making, and its effectiveness can only be measured by the extent to >which it does so. >2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear mandate to IGF to make >recommendations where necessary. >I make the above analysis because I do not agree with the following >assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames the key substantive >issue in the email. > >para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the desirability of the >continuation"; ie : the recommendations of the UN SG should mainly >revolve around the >question : continuation Yes or No ? and not get >into any renegotiation of the mandate or the administrative and >operational organization of the Forum. >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >more than the Yes or >No question. > > >Section 74 of TA reads >"We encourage the UN Secretary-General to examine a range of options >for the convening of the Forum ..........' >and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and decentralized >structure that would be subject to periodic review". >Therefore, while a review of the IGF can certainly not renegotiate >the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative and operational >organization of the Forum' is certainly open to review and change. >In this matter we are opposed to certain kind of changes (taking it >closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but seek other kinds >(things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, more focused agenda, >some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, better and more >effective connections to forums where substantive Internet policy is >made, stable public funding to ensure its neutrality etc). >I also think that to ensure that progressive forces are not able to >get together to demand the kind of changes that are needed to enable >the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really effective, there >is much more exclusive focus by 'status quoists' in the "IGF review >debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take over the IGF' than is >needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong posturing and >sloganeering helps push other possibilities of more progressive >changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the background, in >fact, into the oblivion. >Parminder >Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, >Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who spoke were not thinking >of multistakeholderism but underlying their objections was a >different politics. They suspect China (along with some others) is up >to some games here, and more open consideration of UN SG's report >give them a better chance to put their views in more solidly, not >that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN GA. Also, some >governments who are members of CSTD and not ECOSOC obviously are more >vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice versa. So, since weakening >MS process was not what the government who spoke at the consultations >really spoke about, and all the concerned actors know this, our first >assertion looks really weak. These gov reps really spoke about the >proper process of WSIS follow up matters going through CSTD, that is >all. >I must correct this : preserving the multi-stakeholder spirit of >discussions was clearly in the minds of most governments who spoke in >Geneva to support having the report presented to the CSTD. >The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea of an Internet >Governance forum came principally from the discussions of the WGIG, >which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - even if the mandate of >the IGF was included in a document ultimately signed by governments >only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have played an important >role in its definition - the functioning of the Forum itself has been >organized since its inception by a multi-stakeholder process >(including through the MAG) - para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions >"the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the recommendations of >the UN SG should mainly revolve around the question : continuation >Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >administrative and operational organization of the Forum. >In this context, it would be inappropriate for the UN General >assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only bodies) to discuss >more than the Yes or No question. The capacity to self-organize, >which has made the IGF what it is today, must be preserved. The CSTD, >because of its mandate to handle the follow-up of WSIS, is not only >the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft resolutions for >ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN structure that has the >possibility to allow a discussion among a diversity of actors on how >to make the IGF even better without changing its fundamental >multi-stakehoder nature. >The governments who have spoken have indeed done so in order to >preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. >Best >Bertrand >-- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour >la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information >Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French >Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting >humans") ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org To be > removed from the list, send any >message to: >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > >governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > >http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: >http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > > > >-- >____________________ >Bertrand de La Chapelle >Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >the Information Society >Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of >Foreign and European Affairs >Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > >"Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de >Saint Exupéry >("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Fri Feb 26 15:36:26 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:36:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <28AA94C4-059C-4BE9-BD5F-4E796E2204DF@psg.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <28AA94C4-059C-4BE9-BD5F-4E796E2204DF@psg.com> Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB38CC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > you have got to be kidding. > > maybe it depends on the type of historiography one is partial > to and as far as i can tell unless one believes in the > relatively marxist historical moment sort of historical > explanation, one is stuck with the great man of history > explanation. I think your view is incredibly unrealistic, even bizarre. Authoritarian monsters like Hitler, Mao, Stalin can only do what they do by playing groups off against each other, by claiming for themselves the ability to represent and enact collective ideals, and by seizing collective capabilities. No one who seriously studies that history can explain what happened in those societies by reference to a malevolent individual alone. They capitalize on and help to create group animosities and loyalties. How do you get people to massacre Jews without group loyalties and prejudices, us against them? How do you legitimize wars and get soldiers to fight and kill people they don't know without appeal to things like "patriotism," duty to society and the state, cultural or racial differences? This has nothing to do with Marxist historicism, which posits laws of history independent of individuals. > it is individuals, natural and corporate, who commit all the > crimes - at the boundary of the individual is where murder, Ah I see, so you are not only unwilling to assign individuals rights, and place them at the center of concern for well being, you are also willing to assign to them responsibility for all crimes. Is the flaw in your position not obvious? Please explain to me how individuals qua individuals are responsible for all the world's evils but individuals as members of groups suddenly become angels who free themselves from all this iniquity. I will be interested in this explanation. > but without an individual in his very own individual voice or > very own trigger finger nothing like WW2 or Vietnam or Iraq > or .... could ever happen. Utter rubbish. those triggers get pulled because of tremendous social pressures, not to mention massive levels of state taxation and coercion. They operate at the group level. You and I can war against each other as individuals, but there is no way our feuds can reach the destructive scale of modern warfare unless we pull into the picture collective differences and animosities and collective capabilities. > as one of those who yammer about groups being the only way to > go And you are ignoring my main point: for every group, there are non-members of the group, outsiders, people who are excluded and different from the group and its identity. Even a group formed with the most benevolent of intentions tends to view outsiders suspiciously and to exclude. You don't see that as having anything to do with the conflicts and problems of human history? Remarkable. Your view is so one-sided. As an advocate of individual rights, I have no problem recognizing and dealing with the problems that abusive individual action can cause. I have trouble understanding how someone can fail to recognize any threat or issues stemming from group boundaries and differences. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Fri Feb 26 16:24:46 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (JFC Morfin) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:24:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <20100226202310.25CDA91FDB@npogroups.org> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <20100226202310.25CDA91FDB@npogroups.org> Message-ID: <20100226212529.EA7D591708@npogroups.org> At 21:22 26/02/2010, JFC Morfin wrote: >- The architectural (technical and social) process is what decides >where one should be a leader to best serve and hence for the service >to sustainably develop. Sorry for the typo that substantially change the idea: - The architectural (technical and social) process is what decides where _openness_ should be the leader to best serve and hence for the service to sustainably develop. The idea is that when a volunteer is ready to invest his time/resources it is to correct a difficult situation resulting from a lack or from an abnormal monopoly. This is clearly the case in multilinguistics issues (multilinguistics being understood as the cyberntics of the linguistic diversity) where with Unicode, M$ and Google dispute a leadership in using a inadequate technological but commercially rewarding approach. The proper response is sustainable architecture and code that will make the linguistic area a "no-market" to everyone advantage. jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 16:56:45 2010 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:56:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB38CC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> <55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <28AA94C4-059C-4BE9-BD5F-4E796E2204DF@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB38CC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I think your view is incredibly unrealistic, even bizarre. Authoritarian > monsters like Hitler Godwin. Let's move on. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Feb 26 17:15:27 2010 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:15:27 +1100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Well spotted McTim! For the uninitiated from Wikipedia- Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches² Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum  form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis  might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued  that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Also there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished. From: McTim Reply-To: , McTim Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:56:45 +0300 To: , Milton L Mueller Cc: Avri Doria Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: > > I think your view is incredibly unrealistic, even bizarre. Authoritarian > monsters like Hitler Godwin. Let's move on. -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Fri Feb 26 21:06:52 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 10:06:52 +0800 Subject: FW: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Message-ID: Speaking of contradictions: MM(1): Any collectivity is in the end composed of individual human beings. MM(2): No one who seriously studies that history can explain what happened in those societies by reference to a malevolent individual alone. (And I know that I'm quoting out of context etc.etc. but the problem with taking an absolutist position (MM1) is that one very quickly runs into internal contradictions in any encounter with the real world (MM2). MbG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:36 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > you have got to be kidding. > > maybe it depends on the type of historiography one is partial > to and as far as i can tell unless one believes in the > relatively marxist historical moment sort of historical > explanation, one is stuck with the great man of history > explanation. I think your view is incredibly unrealistic, even bizarre. Authoritarian monsters like Hitler, Mao, Stalin can only do what they do by playing groups off against each other, by claiming for themselves the ability to represent and enact collective ideals, and by seizing collective capabilities. No one who seriously studies that history can explain what happened in those societies by reference to a malevolent individual alone. They capitalize on and help to create group animosities and loyalties. How do you get people to massacre Jews without group loyalties and prejudices, us against them? How do you legitimize wars and get soldiers to fight and kill people they don't know without appeal to things like "patriotism," duty to society and the state, cultural or racial differences? This has nothing to do with Marxist historicism, which posits laws of history independent of individuals. > it is individuals, natural and corporate, who commit all the > crimes - at the boundary of the individual is where murder, Ah I see, so you are not only unwilling to assign individuals rights, and place them at the center of concern for well being, you are also willing to assign to them responsibility for all crimes. Is the flaw in your position not obvious? Please explain to me how individuals qua individuals are responsible for all the world's evils but individuals as members of groups suddenly become angels who free themselves from all this iniquity. I will be interested in this explanation. > but without an individual in his very own individual voice or > very own trigger finger nothing like WW2 or Vietnam or Iraq > or .... could ever happen. Utter rubbish. those triggers get pulled because of tremendous social pressures, not to mention massive levels of state taxation and coercion. They operate at the group level. You and I can war against each other as individuals, but there is no way our feuds can reach the destructive scale of modern warfare unless we pull into the picture collective differences and animosities and collective capabilities. > as one of those who yammer about groups being the only way to > go And you are ignoring my main point: for every group, there are non-members of the group, outsiders, people who are excluded and different from the group and its identity. Even a group formed with the most benevolent of intentions tends to view outsiders suspiciously and to exclude. You don't see that as having anything to do with the conflicts and problems of human history? Remarkable. Your view is so one-sided. As an advocate of individual rights, I have no problem recognizing and dealing with the problems that abusive individual action can cause. I have trouble understanding how someone can fail to recognize any threat or issues stemming from group boundaries and differences. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mueller at syr.edu Sat Feb 27 00:58:38 2010 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton L Mueller) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:58:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CE2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Michael, There's actually no logical contradiction between the two positions you cite. I'd suggest you do some readings on the debate over methodological individualism (MI) in the social sciences. You will discover that all serious social scientists who contest MI will concede, at the very least, that any collectivity is in the end composed of individual human beings; and you will discover that all serious social scientists who support MI will concede that there are collective phenomena in which the group is more than the sum of its parts. The debate is about the degree to which one attributes an independent existence to the collective unit or tries to explain it in terms of the interactions of individuals. What's more interesting about your intervention is that you go after me but not Avri, who you could have accused of the same contradiction in reverse. What the heck, maybe I should invoke Hitler again to put an end to this. --MM ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: FW: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Speaking of contradictions: MM(1): Any collectivity is in the end composed of individual human beings. MM(2): No one who seriously studies that history can explain what happened in those societies by reference to a malevolent individual alone. (And I know that I'm quoting out of context etc.etc. but the problem with taking an absolutist position (MM1) is that one very quickly runs into internal contradictions in any encounter with the real world (MM2). MbG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:36 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > you have got to be kidding. > > maybe it depends on the type of historiography one is partial > to and as far as i can tell unless one believes in the > relatively marxist historical moment sort of historical > explanation, one is stuck with the great man of history > explanation. I think your view is incredibly unrealistic, even bizarre. Authoritarian monsters like Hitler, Mao, Stalin can only do what they do by playing groups off against each other, by claiming for themselves the ability to represent and enact collective ideals, and by seizing collective capabilities. No one who seriously studies that history can explain what happened in those societies by reference to a malevolent individual alone. They capitalize on and help to create group animosities and loyalties. How do you get people to massacre Jews without group loyalties and prejudices, us against them? How do you legitimize wars and get soldiers to fight and kill people they don't know without appeal to things like "patriotism," duty to society and the state, cultural or racial differences? This has nothing to do with Marxist historicism, which posits laws of history independent of individuals. > it is individuals, natural and corporate, who commit all the > crimes - at the boundary of the individual is where murder, Ah I see, so you are not only unwilling to assign individuals rights, and place them at the center of concern for well being, you are also willing to assign to them responsibility for all crimes. Is the flaw in your position not obvious? Please explain to me how individuals qua individuals are responsible for all the world's evils but individuals as members of groups suddenly become angels who free themselves from all this iniquity. I will be interested in this explanation. > but without an individual in his very own individual voice or > very own trigger finger nothing like WW2 or Vietnam or Iraq > or .... could ever happen. Utter rubbish. those triggers get pulled because of tremendous social pressures, not to mention massive levels of state taxation and coercion. They operate at the group level. You and I can war against each other as individuals, but there is no way our feuds can reach the destructive scale of modern warfare unless we pull into the picture collective differences and animosities and collective capabilities. > as one of those who yammer about groups being the only way to > go And you are ignoring my main point: for every group, there are non-members of the group, outsiders, people who are excluded and different from the group and its identity. Even a group formed with the most benevolent of intentions tends to view outsiders suspiciously and to exclude. You don't see that as having anything to do with the conflicts and problems of human history? Remarkable. Your view is so one-sided. As an advocate of individual rights, I have no problem recognizing and dealing with the problems that abusive individual action can cause. I have trouble understanding how someone can fail to recognize any threat or issues stemming from group boundaries and differences. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From nhklein at gmx.net Sat Feb 27 01:10:52 2010 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:10:52 +0700 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB38CC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <28AA94C4-059C-4BE9-BD5F-4E796E2204DF@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB38CC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B88B76C.5000002@gmx.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 27 02:28:19 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:58:19 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002260938n6a8c834bvd999e7aef3a3d51a@mail.gmail.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com> <4B879EE8.5030401@itforchange.net> <954259bd1002260938n6a8c834bvd999e7aef3a3d51a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B88C993.4000905@itforchange.net> Dear Bertrand As always your response is so engaging, and so full of ideas, that I cant but engage :). So, sorry for another email. I will respond in 3-4 parts since there are so many different issues you raise. Let me first refocus on the issue that I raised in my email. I am *not against MS-ism in the democratic governance framework*. Rather to the contrary, I am very much involved with such MS-ism it at all levels that my organization works. I am against what I call as *neolib MS-ism or post-democratic MS-ism*. In this relation I speak of the role of big business organized principally on share capital, which is increasingly and in systematic ways being made more and more fluid and easily transferable (in which process ICTs have an important role, but that is a different story) and thus increasingly being divorced from human closeness and thus from human qualities. This is very well known in economic theories/ literature. Shareholders trade shares, almost always, solely on their dividend earning capacity and potential, and companies are run to keep share values high. You seem to agree to this when you say the following >I agree that today, corporate governance is too often about responsibility to shareholders only, as if companies >were mere financial black-boxes, and people should only care about how much money is put in and how much >comes out. The current stock-market driven perception of corporations and the related social pressures are a >disgrace to the spirit of entrepreneurship. I am dealing with things as they exist - which part you seem to agree with - and not as you or others may idealise them. As long as big business indeed is organised in this manner - and all the evidence points to the direction that it is increasingly even more organized in this manner (do you have any evidence to the contrary) - I dont see why they should have a seat at policy making table. The fact that their resources are many times more than any other actor on the table makes them able to skew any ostensibly 'open' process even more to their advantage further vitiates the processes of mutlistakeholderism, as it is often practiced. I can give any number of examples of this, at global - including IG related, and national levels. A very large part of civil society, i may even say the major part in developing countries at least, see MS-ism with suspicion for this reason. Correspondingly, I find the silences on this issue when MSism is discussed in IG spaces, including on this list, very problematic. As governments - including democratically elected ones - need always to be complemented with elements of deepening democracy, participation, openness, transparency, stakeholder consultation/ participation, constitutional and legal systems, judiciary etc, MS talk need always be accompanied by talk of legitimacy of big business with remote/ fluid/ 'inhuman' ownership (and *not the immediately and directly implicated private players/ enterpreneurs*) at policy tables, the manner in which they easily dominate heavily, and very often scuttle legitimate collective political processes, the corresponding requirement for ever present and ever active counter -measures, assessment of whether such measures are in fact working etc etc. In so far this is not done - as the deep silences on these issues in IG spaces and this list testifies - one would, if unwittingly, only be playing the game of, and controlled by, the big business. And big business is right now playing big games, especially at the global levels, and planning even bigger ones. This is what I call as neolib MS-ism and post-democratic MS-ism. Parminder Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear Parminder, > > I'm glad to see a high level of awareness and support on this list > regarding E. Ostrom's work. Some comments inline (another long post, > sorry :-). > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Parminder > wrote: > > Bertrand > > Now if Multistakeholderism is Elinor Ostrom style commons > management, can I please enlist as its enthusiastic supporter :) > > > As Françoise Massit-Follea reminded us, E. Ostrom's key 7 fundamental > building blocks for Common Pool Resources Governance Frameworks (8 if > you take into account the possibility of "nested" regimes) are in my > view extremely adaptable to many issues we are dealing with here, > particularly the management of critical Internet resources. > > I actually have been in contact with Elinor Ostrom no later than last > week in the context of the upcoming Transparency and Accountability > AoC review of ICANN and she explicitly confirmed that "Yes, the > internet domain name system could be productively thought of as a CPR." > > > But the sad fact is that MS-ism which we experience and are > discussing is not it at all anything close to commons style > management- rather more often quite to the contrary. > > Let me give you a very handy example. Try proposing any commons > management stuff for the IGF program and see where it goes in the > MAG - the multistakeholder body. You may know that open source, > open content, A2K, community networks (also in the last MAG > meeting) and such topics have fared very badly in such MS > environments. The whole basis, principles and practises of commons > management are very different. I dont think it is at all fair to > present high policy level MS-ism as we experience around us today > in terms of such commons management. > > > As indicated above, the CPR approach being very appropriate for the > CIR topic, it could easily be introduced in the program. I believe in > particular that a workshop would be very appropriate in Vilnius on a > theme like : > > *"The Domain Name System as Common Pool Resource (CPR) : * > *what consequences for its governance framework ?"* > > It would clearly bring new perspectives in a key debate that people > are now ready to have seriously. If people on this list want to take > the initiative to organize it (or a similar title), count me in, Id be > very happy to contribute. > > > > I took a look at Ostrom's framework of commons resource management > forwarded by Massit. The very first point deals with 'exclusion', > and she must have had a very ood reason to do it. > > 'Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external > unentitled parties)' > > > The notion of "exclusion" or "defined parties" is very important and I > would relate it to the notion of "relevant stakeholders" discussed in > a previous post. As mentioned earlier, Multi-stakeholder Governance is > neither about siloed "stakeholder groups" (the dialogue space must be > unique, even if various groups form to prepare discussions), nor about > just organized entities (per Karl's remarks : individuals must not be > excluded in principle). > > If, as I believe, MSG is based on "the right for any actor or > individual to participate, in an appropriate manner, in the governance > mechanisms dealing with issues they have a stake in or are impacted > by", then E. Ostrom criteria of defined boundaries is respected. The > "appropriate manner" in which the different actors participate should > correspond in some ways to the stake they have in the issue. One could > even envisage that there also is a duty to participate for actors who > have an impact on an issue, even if they do not spontaneously want to > (topic example here in our domain is large social networks, > conspicuously absent from the IGF). > > Of course, the precise modalities need to be more clearly defined. But > the fundamental affirmation in the first CPR governance principle is > that governance frameworks work well if there is a sufficient > delineation of who belongs to an "Action Situation" and who does not. > The challenge is to make sure that there are no free riders (people > who should be involved and be subjects to the collective rules of > "appropriation and provision" but try to stay out to maximize their > gains), no disenfranchised (actors who should be taken into account > but are not invited), but also no useless participants (who have no > direct or indirect stake). > > > > Is it then that a shareholder (and any proxy of his 'interests') > from hundreds/ thousands of miles away, who most likely doesnt > even fully know where and what for exactly his money is invested, > is to be excluded from 'governance mechanisms'. That is great. > This makes the MS framework - if still MS it is - very acceptable > to me. > > > I am afraid a bit of anticapitalist rethoric is carrying you further > than you want. First of all, because you lump in the same basket the > predatory practices of heartless financial vultures (they do exist) > and the perfectly fine, useful and necessary mechanisms through which > companies do get the money they need to provide their services. You > can't seriously be treating them in the same way. > > Second, because the multi-stakeholder philosophy, if you accept to > give it some credit, applies potentially as a governance paradigm at > multiple levels, in a nested manner. Nothing prevents you from using > this lever towards companies themselves, to encourage/press/force them > to include their "relevant stakeholders" (customers, employees, > providers, but also governments, general citizens, etc...) in their > decision-making processes. Isn't it what trade unions or NGO activists > are asking in the first place. Your discarding a tool that potentially > works in your favor is surprising. > > A topical example here is the discussion we had in the EuroDiG last > year and in the workshop on "Governance of Social Media" in Sharm > regarding the importance of the *large social media sites'* *"Terms of > Service"*, that basically serve as "the law of the space" (for > instance the Facebook or YouTube Terms of Service clearly define most > of what you can and cannot do on this "virtual territory" (ie as long > as you are within the "frontiers" of the domain name - that is : on > the closed space of the site). > > A multi-stakeholder approach here would point towards such large sites > associating their users, and maybe other actors, in the refinement of > these rules instead of drafting them as corporate internal stuff and > having afterwards to back off because of their customers' (or > political actors') reactions. Community sites like ebay, facebook and > others are moving - albeit slowly - in that direction. > > I had a very interesting exchange in Sharm with the Prosecutor for the > State of Sao Paolo who was leading the case regarding Orkut. He was > very open to the idea for instance of establishing, inside such social > sites, multi-stakeholder advisory groups (MAGs !) composed of > representatives from law enforcement agencies, civil rights NGOs, > users, etc... who would assist the company in the treatment of > delicate cases of "notice and take down" regarding user-posted content. > > To come back to the point further above, I agree that today, corporate > governance is too often about responsibility to shareholders only, as > if companies were mere financial black-boxes, and people should only > care about how much money is put in and how much comes out. The > current stock-market driven perception of corporations and the related > social pressures are a disgrace to the spirit of entrepreneurship. And > yes, entrepreneur is a french word :-) > > As a former successful entrepreneur, I can testify that the rationale > for creating a company is not only financial, but mostly to do > something you find exciting, provide a service you think people need > or invent a completely new activity. > > > But first let me ask you, does this principle work to exclude > large businesses organised over global share capital from MS > systems, since the interests of such share capital has no real, > embedded and 'live' interest in any 'issue' at all, which seems to > be the first requirement for participaiton in the Ostrom's > framework? If so, we are on the same page. I convert to being a > full supporter of MSism. > > > Sorry, you lose me here. If you have read E. Ostrom's analysis of > water systems in various regions, you know that water companies were > full stakeholders in the corresponding CPR systems regarding the water > basins. If companies have what she describes as "appropriator rights" > (ie : are allowed to pump), don't you think that they have an > "embedded, live interest" in the preservation of the water pool ? > > If a large fishing company (maybe with international capital) has > fishing rights in a zone or for a specific type of fish, don't you > think they have an "embedded, live" interest in the long-term > preservation of the fish pool ? > > Finally, do you really prefer the government cartel mechanism that > rules oil resources, to a global governance system for oil resources > that would include all actors, including oil companies, to ensure > long-term sustainability, and more stable prices that do not harm > developing countries ? Let's remember that a significant part of the > debt burden of africa is an indirect result of the oil shocks that > forced them to borrow heavily in order to develop exports that could > cover the higher price of oil. > > So, instead of considering that by definition business is the devil > that should in any case be excluded from any sort of governance > mechanism, why not consider that MS mechanisms can in fact re-empower > various actors, including governments, citizens and civil society, to > make sure that corporations do not escape their responsibilities. > > > > Also, Ostrom's system has a strong place for commonly evolved > rules. I have never been able to understand how an MS system - the > kinds that get spoken of on this list - ever develops any rules at > all. Would also like to know more in this regard. > > > I have no perfect answer. However, the two embryonic, experimental, > tentative efforts that the IGF and ICANN represent are in my view the > two laboratories for discovering how this can be done. > > I've repeatedly said that the *IGF's outcome is for a large part its > format* : an experiment in MS dialogue and MS interaction. It does not > produce rules yet, but in E. Ostrom's Institutional Analysis and > Development Framework (IAD), her "Grammar of institutions" helps > define a unifying syntax (ADICO) for rules, norms and strategies. > Without delving too much in detail at the moment, my understanding is > that the IGF currently allows actors to synchronise strategies and > better avoid prisoner's dilemma type of situations. If the IGF moves > forward in time and helps shape recommendations, this corresponds to > the category of norms in the AICO framework (prescriptions without > sanctions). The difference between a norm and a rule in this approach > is the so-called OR ELSE (ie : what happens if the collective norm is > not respected :punition, and enforcement thereof). > > It is not the purpose of the IGF to get to any enforcement capacity or > to develop rules. But ICANN, in a very limited domain, is one of the > first experiments of a multi-stakeholder international Agency (even > potential regulator for the "semantic spectrum") with some power to > sanction (even if it does not use it as it should). this organization, > with all its faults, is indeed faced with the obligation to design > decision-making procedures and rule-enforcement mechanisms. > > Rather than throwing away the very concept of multi-stakeholder > governance - the introduction of which in a UN summit declaration the > IGC should actually consider as its own major success - there is much > more to gain in trying to build on the fragile experiments to move > towards whatever future governance framework is needed. > > Hope this helps > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >> Dear all, >> >> An important element in this debate would be to introduce the >> intellectual framework developed by Elinor Ostrom (nobel Prize in >> Economics 2009) regarding Common Pool Resources (CPRs) and their >> corresponding governance mechanisms. >> >> The fundamental idea is that the classical "tragedy of the >> commons" paper is simply wrong and that concerned actors (what we >> call stakeholders) can develop common governance frameworks for >> the management of common resources. >> >> Although she does not use the term "multi-stakeholder", the >> spirit is clearly there and she positions CPR Governance systems >> as between state regulation of the commons and >> privatization/market mechanisms. >> >> I do not have time to detail this here but encourage all >> participants in this discussion to read "Governing the Commons >> " >> and "Understanding Institutional Diversity >> ", >> two of her seminal books on this issue. >> >> More on that later when I have thee time. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Avri Doria > > wrote: >> >> hi, >> >> I neither see it as a panacea nor even in the category of >> possible panaceas, for those are but classes of snake oil >> that are meant to cure all ills. And Multistakeholder >> governance (MSG - i think of MS as multiple sclerosis) does >> not belong in the category. >> >> I do see it as a modality that is important both in itself >> and as a stage in the evolving development of governance >> systems. It represents progress over the nation-state, bi >> and multi-lateral modalities. It also moves us beyond the >> pure top down or pure bottom up models. In its best form it >> allows for persons, both natural and otherwise, to form into >> self regulated interest and affinity groupings and allows >> them, as members of these groups, and with their individual >> voices, to participate as peers in the critical governance >> activities, including talk, capacity building, action, >> regulation and enforcement. >> >> I worry about the Muller/Katz formulation that diminishes >> this important stage in governance development. I worry >> mostly that this diminution plays into the hands of those who >> want to remain in, and bolster the legitimacy of, the older >> variants of the Westfalian military-industrial sovereign >> state - whether this is their intention or not. >> >> a. >> >> >> On 25 Feb 2010, at 09:14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Milton L Mueller wrote: >> > >> >> One of the fallacies of the MS approach as currently >> articulated is that it seems to have no grasp of the >> limitations of collective governance. It drastically >> overstates the capabilities and scope of global governance >> and pushes forward participation as the answer to everything. >> > >> > Who does this and where? >> > The MS approach is pushed these days because of the pending >> evaluation of the IGF, not as a panacea per se. >> > >> >> It seems to imply that if we all just talk about stuff we >> can all agree and solve all problems. >> > >> > Certainly not on this list. We have endlessly discussed the >> implications of a forum without binding decision-making >> capacity here. >> > >> > But that it isn't consistent with what we know >> >> about human nature, and free expression is a good example. >> In order to be able to publish a controversial message on my >> blog, I should not have to gain the collective assent of 7 >> billion people. The whole point of "governance" in that area, >> imho, is precisely to shield groups and individuals from >> unwanted "governance" by others. >> > >> > With regard to free expression perhaps although free >> expression needs rules as well in order to work. Even this >> list has rules specifying limits of unwanted behavior. >> > >> > jeanette >> >> --MM >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Bertrand de La Chapelle >> [mailto:bdelachapelle at gmail.com ] >> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 24, 2010 7:38 AM >> >> *To:* governance at lists.cpsr.org >> ; Jeanette Hofmann >> >> *Cc:* Milton L Mueller; Parminder; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang >> >> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with >> Bertrand >> >> Dear all, >> >> Following Jeanette's comments on Milton's remarks, >> there are >> >> ambiguities around the terms "stakeholders" and >> "multi-stakeholders" >> >> that must be clarified, as I've expressed in previous >> exchanges with >> >> Karl Auerbach on this topic. >> >> "Stakeholders" is often understood as meaning the three >> (or four, or >> >> five ...) *"stakeholder groups"* or constituencies : >> governments, >> >> civil society, business (plus technical community, and >> IGOs). >> >> According to this approach, "multi-stakeholder" >> governance looks a >> >> little bit like the ILO (International Labor >> organization) with the >> >> three constituencies of governments, employers and >> trade unions, >> >> each in their respective structures. in a certain way, >> ICANN is >> >> still structured very much in this way, with what I >> have often >> >> described as the "silo structure" that too often >> prevent real >> >> interaction among actors. The two notions : >> "stakeholders" and >> >> "stakeholders groups" need to be clearly distinguished : >> >> "stakeholders" is a broader and more diverse notion. >> "Stakeholders" is also often understood (by Karl Auerbach in >> >> particular) as meaning i*nstitutional organizations >> only* (ie >> >> incorporated structures, be they public authorities, >> corporations or >> >> NGOs), limiting or even forbidding therefore the >> participation of >> >> individuals. I have repeatedly mentioned that this does >> not need to >> >> be the case and that individuals should have the >> possibility to >> >> participate with appropriate modalities in >> multi-stakeholder >> >> governance frameworks. The IGF in that respect is a >> very useful >> >> example with its open registration policy that allows >> >> individuals. Important established structures (governments, >> >> businesses, NGOs) with internal consultation and >> decision-making >> >> processes are relevant stakeholders, but individuals >> too. The corollary of the participation of individuals is >> that in the >> >> decision shaping phases of multi-stakeholder processes, >> such >> >> individuals can represent viewpoints and not >> necessarily groups of >> >> people. Provided they are contributing, they should not >> be required >> >> to demonstrate specific representation credentials >> (hence the >> >> classical question : but who do they really represent ? >> is moot, and >> >> akin to the "how many divisions has the Pope ?"). Any >> person with >> >> something to contribute should be allowed to do so >> because it >> >> informs the processes and the general understanding of >> an issue. The >> >> purpose of such phases is to shape issues in the most >> comprehensive >> >> manner, taking into account the perspective of all >> actors who have a >> >> stake in it. And in such cases, for instance, an old >> white man from >> >> a developed country can perfectly have a good knowledge >> of the >> >> challenges of gender for youth in poor countries and >> try to ensure >> >> that this perspective is taken into account in the >> discussions even >> >> if no "representative" from such communities is >> present. However, >> >> actual representatives of the different interests are >> needed in the >> >> decision-making phase that follows, and established >> institutions and >> >> structures may have a specific role to play here. . >> >> This leads to a better understanding of >> "multi-stakeholderism". In >> >> this context, Milton actually presents a very valid >> vision, up to >> >> the last bit of the paragraph : >> >> MS is at best a transitional phase implying a >> motion from purely >> >> intergovernmental toward a more open, democratic >> forms of global >> >> governance. In this progression, we need to have a >> clearer idea >> >> of what the end point is - and MS is not it. In a >> world of >> >> perfect global governance the artificial division >> of society >> >> into "estates" such as "government, business and >> civil society" >> >> no longer exists; it is the individual that >> matters. Yes, what is at stake is the invention of a >> truly open, democratic >> >> form of global governance. And yes, actors must not be >> artificially >> >> divided into separate estates that are too rigid and >> prevent their >> >> interaction. (This is why the Multi-stakeholder >> Advisory Group for >> >> the IGF is better than three "Bureaus" for each group). >> And yes, >> >> governance should be based on the right for any actor, >> including >> >> individuals, to participate in an appropriate manner in the >> >> governance processes dealing with the issues he/she has >> a stake in >> >> (is impacted by or concerned with). However, >> multi-stakeholderism should not be understood as >> >> necessarily meaning interaction between separate >> stakeholder groups, >> >> each drafting their own statements to reconcile them >> later on. >> >> Furthermore, I do not believe that the future of global >> governance >> >> is the generalization at the international level of the >> kind of >> >> representative democracy that already reaches some >> limits at lower >> >> scales. The election by 7 billion individuals of a >> World President >> >> or even Parliament is not the solution. >> >> This is why we must consider the different structures >> or groups that >> >> individuals participate in as vectors of the >> representation of their >> >> diverse interests. A single individual has different >> stakes in an >> >> issue - sometimes conflicting - and would benefit from >> having its >> >> different perspectives carried forward in international >> discussions >> >> by a diversity of actors. To take the example of >> environmental >> >> issues, citizens do not want their country to be >> penalized versus >> >> others in the global regime regarding CO2 emissions, >> and therefore >> >> want their government to actively defend their rights. >> But conscious >> >> of the future challenges for their family or the planet >> as a whole, >> >> they may want an activist NGO to be part of the >> discussions to exert >> >> some pressure in favor of a binding rule. Additionally, >> as maybe the >> >> employees of companies in an industry that has to >> support an >> >> important effort to adapt its activity, they fear that >> the global >> >> regime will impact their jobs and therefore want the >> said company or >> >> its trade group to participate as well. Finally, they >> may want to >> >> ensure that any decision is taken on a sound technical and >> >> scientific analysis, which requests expert >> participation. Etc... On >> >> such global topics, individuals have in fact several >> >> stakeholderships in an issue, and citizenship is one of >> them. A >> >> major one, but only one of them, as the global public >> interest is >> >> not the mere aggregation of national public interests. >> In such a perspective, the challenge for all of us, including >> >> governmental representatives, is to avoid limiting our >> understanding >> >> of "multi-stakeholder governance" to the separated silo >> approach, >> >> and to explore/invent the mechanisms through which all >> stakeholders >> >> can, collectively and collaboratively (I would even say >> >> "collegially"), "develop and implement shared regimes" >> on specific >> >> issues. As I have often said in the IGF context, the >> "respective >> >> roles" of the different stakeholders should vary >> according to the >> >> issue, the venue and the state of the discussion. >> This means designing processes for decision-shaping >> (agenda-setting, >> >> issue-framing, recommendation drafting), decision-making >> >> (verification of consensus, validation), and >> implementation (agency, >> >> monitoring and enforcement). The IGF and ICANN are the >> two major >> >> laboratories where this discussion takes place. And >> this list, as >> >> exemplified by these exchanges is one of the places, if >> not the main >> >> one, where the political theory discussion can actually >> take place. I hope this helps move the discussion >> forward. Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> PS : the above comments are of course made on a >> personal basis. >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Jeanette >> Hofmann >> >> >> wrote: >> >> Second, We >> >> need to stop habitually using >> "multi-stakeholderism" as our >> >> label for >> >> good governance and appropriate institutions; >> >> I don't understand why. >> >> MS is at best a >> >> transitional phase implying a motion from purely >> >> intergovernmental >> >> toward a more open, democratic forms of global >> governance. >> >> In this >> >> progression, we need to have a clearer idea of >> what the end >> >> point is >> >> - and MS is not it. In a world of perfect >> global governance the >> >> artificial division of society into "estates" >> such as >> >> "government, >> >> business and civil society" no longer exists; >> it is the >> >> individual >> >> that matters. >> >> I completely disagree with a solely individual >> notion of global >> >> governance. Autonomy and self-determination do not >> rest and >> >> refer to, at least not necessarily, on individual >> freedom only. >> >> What we are all arguing about here concerns >> democratic "rules >> >> for a life in common", as a colleague once put it. >> A life in >> >> common that respects both, individual and >> collective dimensions >> >> of it. >> >> The term stakeholder is perhaps not the most >> fortunate way of >> >> capturing this collective aspect, as Karl A. has >> said many >> >> times, but to give it up and replace it by >> individuals (who >> >> interact in the form of contracts with each other?) >> looks like >> >> an impoverished notion of regulation and political >> rule-making >> >> to me. >> >> jeanette >> >> jea >> >> In relation to this, I really enjoy the way P. skewers >> >> the double standard at work in the MS >> discourse, noting how >> >> MS is >> >> used to fend off certain political actors in >> this context >> >> but somehow >> >> does not apply when it is ACTA, WIPO or WTO. MS >> is about >> >> process but >> >> not substance, and policy substance is what >> matters ultimately. >> >> ________________________________________ From: >> Parminder >> >> [parminder at itforchange.net >> >> >> > >] Sent: Sunday, February >> >> 21, 2010 2:25 AM To: Bertrand de La Chapelle Cc: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> > >; Jeremy >> >> Malcolm; Jeanette Hofmann; Deirdre Williams >> Subject: Re: >> >> [governance] >> >> REVISION 3 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing >> >> Jeanette and Bertrand, >> >> First of all I must apologize that I did not >> read the open >> >> consultation transcripts well. Indeed the >> governments of >> >> developed >> >> countries who spoke on the issue did mention >> MS-ism. I must have >> >> forgotten that part from their interventions >> because there >> >> principal >> >> point was procedural which I found particularly >> forceful. >> >> And I am >> >> sure that if we are indeed effective in our >> appeals that >> >> would be >> >> because of this procedural part. >> >> However, since Bertrand in the subsequent email >> speaks about my >> >> 'analysis of motivation of governments' that >> made the mentioned >> >> interventions, while I clarify that it was not >> so much >> >> motivation but >> >> the tactical aspects of their intervention that >> I spoke >> >> about, I can >> >> hardly suppress the temptation of a bit of >> 'analysis of >> >> motivation'. >> >> Political motivations are generally a subject >> requiring deeper >> >> analysis, and while I do agree that developing >> countries are >> >> interested in, as Bertrand says 'preserve(ing) the >> >> multi-stakeholder >> >> nature of the IGF', it can hardly be said that >> this makes them >> >> 'naturally' more open and democratic at the >> global political >> >> stage, >> >> and developing countries correspondingly more >> closed. One >> >> may ask in >> >> this context why ACTA is being negotiated in >> such secrecy. >> >> Why not >> >> have multistakeholder involvement in its >> drafting and >> >> negotiations? >> >> Especially for its Internet chapter being discussed >> >> currently? And >> >> why at WIPO and WTO developing countries are >> more-NGO >> >> involvement >> >> friendly and not developed countries? >> >> Where support for multistakeholderism starts >> and where it >> >> ends is, >> >> therefore, a question of deep political >> motivations. I >> >> understand >> >> that developed countries want, at this stage, >> to limit >> >> possibilities >> >> for more democratic global policy forums on IG >> issues >> >> because control >> >> over the techno-social infrastructure of the >> Internet, along >> >> with >> >> stronger IP regimes, underpin their new >> strategy for global >> >> domination. This works well with promoting of a >> weak IGF >> >> which is >> >> little more than an annual conference on IG, >> and which has >> >> this great >> >> advantage of acting as the perfect co-option >> device - >> >> letting off >> >> excess steam vis a vis desires for political >> participation >> >> in shaping >> >> the emergent techno-social infrastructure. >> Unfortunately >> >> developing >> >> countries mostly have not woken up to the global >> >> eco-socio-political >> >> domination aspects of IG, and see it in terms >> of statist >> >> controls >> >> within their own territories. >> >> Developed countries want the IGF to carry on >> as it is. Many >> >> developing countries want the IGF to have >> more >> >> substantive >> >> role in global IG regimes, along with a >> specific Internet >> >> policy >> >> regime, for which 'enhanced cooperation' was >> meant to be the >> >> place >> >> holder. Developed countries seem not >> interested in >> >> furthering >> >> the 'enhanced cooperation' agenda, while the >> technical community >> >> supports them on this, as do, regrettably, many >> among civil >> >> society >> >> (dominated by North based/ oriented actors). >> The latter >> >> two also >> >> have often supported the case for weak, annual >> conference, >> >> nature of >> >> IGF, with no consideration to the fact that >> >> 1. IGF's principal raison detre is of helping >> global >> >> Internet policy >> >> making, and its effectiveness can only be >> measured by the >> >> extent to >> >> which it does so. >> >> 2. Specifically, Tunis Agenda gives a clear >> mandate to IGF >> >> to make >> >> recommendations where necessary. >> >> I make the above analysis because I do not >> agree with the >> >> following >> >> assertions in Bertrand's email, which frames >> the key substantive >> >> issue in the email. >> >> para 76 of the Tunis Agenda mentions "the >> desirability >> >> of the >> >> continuation"; ie : the recommendations of >> the UN SG >> >> should mainly >> >> revolve around the >question : continuation >> Yes or No ? >> >> and not get >> >> into any renegotiation of the mandate or the >> >> administrative and >> >> operational organization of the Forum. >> >> In this context, it would be inappropriate >> for the UN >> >> General >> >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are >> governments-only bodies) >> >> to discuss >> >> more than the Yes or >No question. >> >> Section 74 of TA reads >> >> "We encourage the UN Secretary-General to >> examine a range of >> >> options >> >> for the convening of the Forum ..........' >> >> and 73 b reads IGF will "Have a lightweight and >> decentralized >> >> structure that would be subject to periodic >> review". >> >> Therefore, while a review of the IGF can >> certainly not >> >> renegotiate >> >> the mandate of the IGF, the 'administrative >> and operational >> >> organization of the Forum' is certainly open to >> review and >> >> change. >> >> In this matter we are opposed to certain kind >> of changes >> >> (taking it >> >> closer to the ITU. reducing MS nature etc) but >> seek other kinds >> >> (things that can make IGF more effective - WGs, >> more focused >> >> agenda, >> >> some kind of recommendations as mandated by TA, >> better and more >> >> effective connections to forums where >> substantive Internet >> >> policy is >> >> made, stable public funding to ensure its >> neutrality etc). >> >> I also think that to ensure that progressive >> forces are not >> >> able to >> >> get together to demand the kind of changes that >> are needed >> >> to enable >> >> the IGF to fulfill its TA mandate and become really >> >> effective, there >> >> is much more exclusive focus by 'status >> quoists' in the "IGF >> >> review >> >> debate' on stuff like 'ITU is going to take >> over the IGF' >> >> than is >> >> needed on pure merit of the issue. Such strong >> posturing and >> >> sloganeering helps push other possibilities of >> more progressive >> >> changes in the IGF, which are much needed, into the >> >> background, in >> >> fact, into the oblivion. >> >> Parminder >> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: Dear all, >> >> Parminder wrote : In fact the governments who >> spoke were not >> >> thinking >> >> of multistakeholderism but underlying their >> objections was a >> >> different politics. They suspect China (along >> with some >> >> others) is up >> >> to some games here, and more open consideration >> of UN SG's >> >> report >> >> give them a better chance to put their views in >> more >> >> solidly, not >> >> that they wont be there at the ECOSOC and UN >> GA. Also, some >> >> governments who are members of CSTD and not >> ECOSOC obviously >> >> are more >> >> vocal to get matters to the CSTD and vice >> versa. So, since >> >> weakening >> >> MS process was not what the government who >> spoke at the >> >> consultations >> >> really spoke about, and all the concerned >> actors know this, >> >> our first >> >> assertion looks really weak. These gov reps >> really spoke >> >> about the >> >> proper process of WSIS follow up matters going >> through CSTD, >> >> that is >> >> all. >> >> I must correct this : preserving the >> multi-stakeholder spirit of >> >> discussions was clearly in the minds of most >> governments who >> >> spoke in >> >> Geneva to support having the report presented >> to the CSTD. >> >> The reasoning is as follows : - the very idea >> of an Internet >> >> Governance forum came principally from the >> discussions of >> >> the WGIG, >> >> which was a truly multi-stakeholder group - >> even if the >> >> mandate of >> >> the IGF was included in a document ultimately >> signed by >> >> governments >> >> only (the Tunis agenda), many other actors have >> played an >> >> important >> >> role in its definition - the functioning of the >> Forum itself >> >> has been >> >> organized since its inception by a >> multi-stakeholder process >> >> (including through the MAG) - para 76 of the >> Tunis Agenda >> >> mentions >> >> "the desirability of the continuation"; ie : the >> >> recommendations of >> >> the UN SG should mainly revolve around the >> question : >> >> continuation >> >> Yes or No ? and not get into any renegotiation >> of the >> >> mandate or the >> >> administrative and operational organization of >> the Forum. >> >> In this context, it would be inappropriate for >> the UN General >> >> assembly or ECOSOS (which are governments-only >> bodies) to >> >> discuss >> >> more than the Yes or No question. The capacity >> to self-organize, >> >> which has made the IGF what it is today, must >> be preserved. >> >> The CSTD, >> >> because of its mandate to handle the follow-up >> of WSIS, is >> >> not only >> >> the legitimate entry point to prepare the draft >> resolutions for >> >> ECOSOC and the GA; it is also the sole UN >> structure that has the >> >> possibility to allow a discussion among a >> diversity of >> >> actors on how >> >> to make the IGF even better without changing >> its fundamental >> >> multi-stakehoder nature. >> >> The governments who have spoken have indeed >> done so in order to >> >> preserve the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF. >> >> Best >> >> Bertrand >> >> -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué >> >> Spécial pour >> >> la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for >> the Information >> >> Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et >> Européennes/ French >> >> Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : >> +33 (0)6 11 >> >> 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir >> les hommes" >> >> Antoine de >> >> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for >> humans than >> >> uniting >> >> humans") >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on >> the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > > >> >> To be removed from the list, send any >> >> message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> > > >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > > >> >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> > > >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: >> http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> -- ____________________ >> >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / >> Special Envoy for >> >> the Information Society >> >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ >> French Ministry of >> >> Foreign and European Affairs >> >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les >> hommes" Antoine de >> >> Saint Exupéry >> >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting >> humans") >> > ____________________________________________________________ >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> > governance at lists.cpsr.org >> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> > >> > For all list information and functions, see: >> > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> > >> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org >> >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance >> >> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ____________________ >> Bertrand de La Chapelle >> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy >> for the Information Society >> Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry >> of Foreign and European Affairs >> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 >> >> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine >> de Saint Exupéry >> ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") > > > > > -- > ____________________ > Bertrand de La Chapelle > Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for > the Information Society > Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of > Foreign and European Affairs > Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 > > "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de > Saint Exupéry > ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch Sat Feb 27 05:13:19 2010 From: william.drake at graduateinstitute.ch (William Drake) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:13:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB38CC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <28AA94C4-059C-4BE9-BD5F-4E796E2204DF@psg.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB38CC@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: MM On Feb 26, 2010, at 9:36 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote: >> How do you legitimize wars and get soldiers to fight and kill people they don't know without appeal to things like "patriotism," duty to society and the state, cultural or racial differences? This has nothing to do with Marxist historicism, which posits laws of history independent of individuals. This bit of totalizing reductionism is based on what, the Cliff Notes Guide to Marxism? Read inter alia EP Thompson's Poverty of Theory and the debates between him, Perry Anderson and Louis Althusser. The agent-structure problem is widely recognized in Marxist theory to be a wee bit more complex. This whole debate is fetishing a false binary. Dialectically, Bill____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 05:52:41 2010 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 11:52:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954259bd1002270252h6ea93d92v9ede7b934eafe4d5@mail.gmail.com> Milton, Avri, can you agree with triggering the Godwin escape button ? You have both valid points but are talking past one another on different planes : good and bad things in history obviously come from the fortunate or unfortunate combination between individual leaders and groups. Combinations vary but it's not either/or. May I ask you both to continue this specific exchange at the next opportunity you have for a drink ? You both can contribute much more on the rest of the thread. More generally on that topic, this is how I see history : **** Cynics will tell you that history is all about kings and wars. Do not believe them. History is about visions and the efforts of humans to manage their growing and increasingly complex societies. Through an unrelenting competition of ideas in the scientific and political spheres, they try to explain how the world works and how human societies can/should organize. In a nutshell : *“World history is the constant effort of mankind towards better** collective organization”* I strongly believe this is what our present task is - and what this discussion is all about. I can of course be accused of being a relentless optimist. But the philosopher Alain famously said : Pessimism is about Mood; Optimism is about Will. (le Pessimisme est d'humeur, l'optimisme est de volonté". And Jean Monnet, who initiated the European Union process said : "I'm not optimistic, I'm determined". (Je ne suis pas optimiste, je suis déterminé). I hope this helps. Best Bertrand On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Ian Peter wrote: > > > Well spotted McTim! For the uninitiated from Wikipedia- > > *Godwin's Law* (also known as *Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies* or *Godwin's > Law of Nazi Analogies*) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in > 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion > grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler > approaches” > > Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against > the use of arguments in the widespread *reductio ad Hitlerum * form. The > rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or > comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only > asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising > increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a > comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued > that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it > robs the valid comparisons of their impact. > > Also there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion > forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished. > > ------------------------------ > *From: *McTim > *Reply-To: *, McTim > *Date: *Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:56:45 +0300 > *To: *, Milton L Mueller > *Cc: *Avri Doria > > *Subject: *Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:36 PM, Milton L Mueller > wrote: > > > I think your view is incredibly unrealistic, even bizarre. Authoritarian > monsters like Hitler > > > Godwin. > > Let's move on. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route > indicates how we get there." Jon Postel > > ------------------------------ > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance at lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t > -- ____________________ Bertrand de La Chapelle Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32 "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting humans") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Feb 27 07:15:36 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:45:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B890CE8.40001@itforchange.net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > To tie this back to Parminder, based on his latest post I can see where we part ways as well as agree. Parminder has decided that people acting as political collectivities are inherently superior to people acting as private market actors or businesses. No i dont think so. Both forms of action are legitimate and have their value. who told you that i think so?? > Probably he is operating under the delusion that political/democratic processes are inherently guided by a public interest logic They are supposed to be so guided. But they often are not, and therefore the need for deepening democracy processes and those of transparency, accountability, judicial scrutiny etc to make them work as closely as possible towards public interest. But we cannot solve this problem by junking political/ democratic processes, which is what many new age enthusiasts of MS-ism try to do (not you, i know) > whereas private market action is driven by private interest which is inherently opposed to public interest. not so. It is not inherently opposed. Most often, within good frameworks of social action, like competitive and well regulated markets, good laws etc they promote, in fact constitute, larger public interest. So again you are putting words in my mouth, pertaining to things I dont profess. > I disagree. Politicians and political parties have self-interest and can exploit. yes, they very often do. See the description above on strengthening democratic systems to minimizing such abuses, without junking them. > Competitive market processes can promote the public interest. Competitive markets are indeed one of the primary social institutions to promote public interest. > I think people are people, and they need both political processes and economic maximizing processes to survive, and both serve as appropriate checks on each other. Exactly so. Which is why I think that big business on global scale which has no concomitant political process as 'appropriate check' badly requires such checks, and this is one of the principal global political issues facing us today. (Dont know why you say below that this is not a real challenge.) Especially in the conditions with very fluid financial flows and increasingly more 'open' and often forced trade agreements, global business is easily able to play one national political regime against the other and escape all possibilities of 'appropriate checks', which makes this problem especially acute. Much more so for developing countries. > To me, democracy without liberalism is just mob rule, just as capitalism without law, rights and democracy is lousy. Again agree whole-heatedly. But global capitalism is increasingly without law and democracy to act as 'appropriate checks'. I know you feel it much less in the US where much of global business is incorporated and more sensitive to political checks. Such options are increasingly closed for less powerful nations. Thus we need appropriate democratic political arrangements at the global levels. And the confusing talks of unclear concepts like MS-ism, without full social analysis, serves the interests of big business by perpetuating the political vacuums at the global levels. > So while we agree strongly on extending democratic governance modes into the global arena we probably have radically different ideas about how to do it. Ok, you tell me what is your idea on this. In which ways can global capitalism and its increasing force be met with (what you called as ) 'appropriate checks'? You can also suggest specific solutions in the field of digital capitalism where IG is centrally implicated. I too am ready to share my ideas. The we can decide whether we agree to not, and to what extent. > If you designate "neo-liberalism" as the main enemy I don't think you understand very well the real challenges of global governance. > Read my descriptions of increasing power of global capital and decreasing political controls over it, and how it affects developing countries' interest. Do you disagree with it. I presented that formulation mostly developing your own assertions in your email. And this is what I call as the challenge posed by neoliberalism to global governance. What do you think are the real challenges, and why do you think this is not a real challenge? Parminder > However, getting back to Ostrom and collective governance, even if you extend democracy beyond the nation-state you still have to decide what is the relevant community for governance decisions. The people who are always yammering about how good and noble it is to be group-oriented or collective oriented, and ridiculing those of us who talk about the individual, always seem to forget that communities have boundaries, and some of the world's worst crimes come not from individuals attacking or exploiting each other, but from groups - states, ethnicities, religions, etc. - defining other groups as excluded and "the other." No individual, no private, profit-maximizing corporation, could ever produce anything like WW 2 and its national and ethnic carnage. > > --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 > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 27 07:47:47 2010 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:17:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002240438w1951d8bch2485f1cbbb798f99@mail.gmail.com> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3898@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B86316D.3020903@wzb.eu> <954259bd1002250444l1199bce8gc4ac897b8005b5b4@mail.gmail.com>,<55631B7A-806F-4D9E-BF2D-FB8A669F329D@orange.fr> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CD4@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B891473.1000304@itforchange.net> Milton L Mueller wrote: > I forgot to highlight one of the most important observations here wrt to Ostrom and collective governance, which is this: > ________________________________________ > > >> 1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties); >> > > In other words, even if you are dealing with something governed as a "commons," in almost all cases there must be boundaries and effective exclusion for that governance form to work. A simple example: there are "common beaches" in the shore areas of New Jersey in the U.S., but those beaches are commons ONLY for people who are citizens of the towns and villages abutting them. This is so for obvious reasons - if you are not a member of that community you have no right to access the beach, and protecting the quality and viability of the shore is the responsibility of the community that owns it, for open access would allow people with little stake in the beaches to despoil them and crowd out the people who live there. > It is best to root conceptual discussions in specific examples. In the light of what you say above, with which I strongly agree, I ask you and others with whom I engaged with the issue of role of global remotely controlled capital in local governance issues. And this is a real situation. There is a multistakeholder (in democratic framework) effort to develop policy and practices for the best use of ICTs in a state of India to achieve its educational aims, in government schools. Do you think a representative of microsoft, and a couple of more US based global digital companies, have a legitimate 'stake' in evolving such policies and practices? (The fact is that they have completely taken over the so called 'multistakeholder' process, 'effectively' excluding educationists, progressive civil society actors etc.) And with 'stake' i dont mean contribution of possible expertise which can always be sourced from any needed quarters, and in fact should be accessed from all possible parties who may posses it. In fact 'stake', the central word in multistakeholderism, is what needs a solid analysis. Stake is not 'availability of expertise', a confusion that is often made. Purely financial stake, which doesnt effect the livelihood and life quality of someone directly involved, and which is very neutral otherwise to the specific 'live' issues involved (as share capital is), is also not a 'stake' in my view when we speak of multistakeholderism in political terms. So, we need to have ways to establish what is 'stake' and who has legitimate 'stake' in a given issue whose governance is under consideration. I havent read Ostrom but she must have done some work on this. But I remain convinced that in a case like the one I posited above, remotely controlled share capital has no legitimate 'stake' in any local political process. This of course does not mean that its interests are not given a hearing and treated fairly. Parminder > A true "open access commons" in which there is no exclusion whatsoever is quite rare, although it does exist and is quite relevant to information resources in the public domain. But information of course is non rival in consumption and therefore not what Ostrom defines as a common pool resource. > > People who romanticize commons governance, especially by counterposing it to private property, typically ignore the fact that both forms of governance require "clearly defined boundaries and effective exclusion." The only difference is that in one case the unit of ownership and decision making is the individual household, person or firm, and in the other case it is a larger collectivity. Those who say that either form of governance is inherently superior to the other are anti-empirical; both have advantages, and either can operate better in certain circumstances. > > To tie this back to Parminder, based on his latest post I can see where we part ways as well as agree. Parminder has decided that people acting as political collectivities are inherently superior to people acting as private market actors or businesses. Probably he is operating under the delusion that political/democratic processes are inherently guided by a public interest logic whereas private market action is driven by private interest which is inherently opposed to public interest. I disagree. Politicians and political parties have self-interest and can exploit. Competitive market processes can promote the public interest. I think people are people, and they need both political processes and economic maximizing processes to survive, and both serve as appropriate checks on each other. To me, democracy without liberalism is just mob rule, just as capitalism without law, rights and democracy is lousy. So while we agree strongly on extending democratic governance modes into the global arena we probably have radically different ideas about how to do it. If you designate "neo-liberalism" as the main enemy I don't think you understand very well the real challenges of global governance. > > However, getting back to Ostrom and collective governance, even if you extend democracy beyond the nation-state you still have to decide what is the relevant community for governance decisions. The people who are always yammering about how good and noble it is to be group-oriented or collective oriented, and ridiculing those of us who talk about the individual, always seem to forget that communities have boundaries, and some of the world's worst crimes come not from individuals attacking or exploiting each other, but from groups - states, ethnicities, religions, etc. - defining other groups as excluded and "the other." No individual, no private, profit-maximizing corporation, could ever produce anything like WW 2 and its national and ethnic carnage. > > --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 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Sat Feb 27 13:16:39 2010 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:16:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE2243@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Dear Max, In Italy currently there is a very bad atmosphere on civil rights and freedom of expression. I'm sad to say so, but it's exactly what's happening. In the last months various initiatives have tried to restrict in various forms the Internet freedom. Some of them have been stopped in Parliament, others have gone through, others have been promoted directly by the government, other -like in the case you pinpoint- by singles judges. When I say that the distance between the world of broadcasting and of the press (heavily regulated) and the world of the Internet (with zero regulation) cannot continue to be like it is Today, I'm really serious. The need for a basic minimum set of rules become more and more a need also for Internet, in order not to be exposed to the vexations of one country, one community or a single judge. This fact (like the many others before and the next ones that will inevitably follow) can only reinforce our unanimous belief that there is a real need for a governance of the Internet... Giacomo From: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] Sent: mercredi, 24. février 2010 16:49 To: irp; governance; expression Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for content that users upload" "the Web as we know it will cease to exist" Hi IRPlers, FoE coalition & IGClers I believe many of you have heard about the devestating result of the vividown court-case in Italy, but for those who have not please read the Google policy-blog-post. It is important to stress that this is not about Google, but about Freedom of Expression online! Here is a summary: A judge in Milan today convicted three Google executives in a case involving a reprehensible video posted to Google Video that we took down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. The video showed an autistic boy being bullied by several classmates. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. The law in Europe -- as in the U.S. -- specifically gives hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. These laws are premised on the belief that a notice and takedown regime helps creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them - every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video - then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear. Below is some additional background on the case. We would of course welcome any public statements you might be willing to make today expressing concern about this ruling. It would be great if we could agree to speak up on this matter! Best Max Some more background articles: New York Times story on ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?hp Leslie Harris/CDT op-ed: Italy's Case Against Google is a Bad Moon Rising http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-harris/italys-case-against-googl_b_395634.html Jeff Jarvis: Italy Endangers the Web http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/02/24/italy-endangers-the-web/ UK Member of Parliament Tom Watson: "This is the biggest threat to internet freedom we have seen in Europe. The only people who will support this decision are Silvio Berlusconi and the governments of China and Iran. It effectively breaks the internet in Italy." http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809508-google-bosses-convicted-over-abuse-video-of-downs-syndrome-boy.do TechCrunch: Can Someone Tell this Italian Judge what YouTube is? http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/02/24/can-someone-tell-this-italian-judge-what-youtube-is/ -- "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet." -William Gibson ........................................................................... Max Senges Berlin www.maxsenges.com Mobile: 01622122755 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From avri at psg.com Sat Feb 27 13:49:51 2010 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:49:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <954259bd1002270252h6ea93d92v9ede7b934eafe4d5@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd1002270252h6ea93d92v9ede7b934eafe4d5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On 27 Feb 2010, at 05:52, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Milton, Avri, can you agree with triggering the Godwin escape button ? no. i am willing to be quiet on the theme if IGC is not the place to talk about such things. for the most part i think godwin is overused. it should only triggered when someone calls someone else hitler or calls their arguments hitlerian it should not be not triggered by typing the word hitler. and it is not supposed to be a measure for suppressing the debate - just a silly device for someone to claim - you called me a name so i win becasue you had to resort to name calling. sometime calling it like it is, does include calling something Nazi. in this case, i certainly did not call anyone a Hitler or a nazi. and while i would accuse MM of a lot of things, i do not think he was calling anyone a hitler or a nazi (though one can question wether the reference to WWII was meant to trigger a particular response in anyone - would that be a godwin for you? if talking about the phenomena that most vividly explored and described in modern history is cause for censorship on the list, ok. i suppose i can live with that. you ask what the discussion was about - it is an attempt to the lance the boil that springs up anytime those who believe there is value in group activity who believe that Multistakeholder activity is a good thing in itself that should be strngthened and defended start to be accused of exclusion by those who beleive only in individual activity. a boil that springs up any time someone argues that perhaps direct democracy by all the poeple in world on IG ssues is not really a workeable solution. then we get not only this boil erupting but we also get lots of straw dog arguments, dismissive vilification of the other, and the ultimate 'above it all' peace makers who tell us to cover he boil up with a bandage. as for ceasing discussion on this list whenever people are talking past each other, well then we might as well use the list for informational bulletins and little more.. cheers a. ps. i am answering them as i see them. maybe somebody else said thing terribly soothing which resolves all the issues in a later message, in which ignore this one. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From yehudakatz at mailinator.com Sat Feb 27 16:22:15 2010 From: yehudakatz at mailinator.com (Yehuda Katz) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:22:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: D36175F8-19CE-4C0D-AEA3-0D796D532C4E@psg.com Message-ID: Lets make the discussion relevant to the 21st century , Shall we discuss APAC as a Stakeholder as it is involved in the American Multi stakeholder Political Landscape. It's a much better analogy to work with, and scales globally in its effects through U.S. Foreign Policies. The point made, is that Multi stakeholder' Group(s) can be just as effective upon the population as the Despots (Hitler, Mussolini etc...), Just to be clear, I'm only making a point about the 'Effectiveness' of a group and that of an individual, not the political ideology associated (good or bad). Either way there is an associated economies-to-scale within the era that allow these powers to be created. And for the most part those economies are capitalists (although some are Socialist with capatalist underpinnings). Until now in Human History, I belive (as may Milton), that it is "possible", that the Internet has 'significantly-reduced' the requisite 'economies-to-scale' previously necessary for the rise too Power [by an Individual (political figure) or Stakeholder Group], so that an Individual (personal empowerment) within a Direct Democracy can be had, without the need for representative surrogate (Leader or Group). The Internet can level the playing field 'Politically', however the Internet cannot level the playing field 'Economically', so the issue regarding Human Rights in regards to 'needs' (Standards of Living) cannot be resolved by the Internet, they can be only resolved through a system of economic fair trade working in equilibrium. While we are on this subject, I would also point out that equal efforts toward finding equilibrium must be put forth on the Ecological Playing field as well. Over Population is the primary problem at this point in time, and any scaling up made through say, Internet Governance efficiency, impacts the Human Population and thus the Environment takes the brunt of the Ecological tax. So the two (Economy and Ecology are intrinsèque) are equally important, Anyway you get the idea. --- AIPAC 'American Israel Public Affairs Committee' http://www.aipac.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org 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 Feb 27 16:53:02 2010 From: lmcknigh at syr.edu (Lee W McKnight) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:53:02 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] USG rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy In-Reply-To: <08602885-B313-4149-BD68-DF8F5599BD94@me.com> References: <5548BA36-80D0-481E-BA87-777D56FD08FB@infowarrior.org>,<08602885-B313-4149-BD68-DF8F5599BD94@me.com> Message-ID: <93F4C2F3D19A03439EAC16D47C591DDE015463CD69@suex07-mbx-08.ad.syr.edu> Changing the subject - but not really - we are on to an undefined/ill-defined 'Internet Policy 3.0' regime apparently; see below from old friend Kieren. Somewhere between Berlusconi and he who will (please!) not be named yet again, we have some real challenges here which requires more incisive analysis and less.... IMHO, Bertrand is on to something, which may help make 3.0; or 4.0; more to CS liking. Lee ________________________________________ From: Dave Farber [dave at farber.net] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 3:06 PM To: ip Subject: [IP] USG rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Forno > Date: February 26, 2010 9:06:56 PM EST To: Undisclosed-recipients: <>; Cc: Dave Farber > Subject: USG rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/27/internet_3_dot_0_policy/ US government rescinds 'leave internet alone' policy By Kieren McCarthy Posted in Networks, 27th February 2010 00:06 GMT The US government’s policy of leaving the Internet alone is over, according to Obama’s top official at the Department of Commerce. Instead, an “Internet Policy 3.0” approach will see policy discussions between government agencies, foreign governments, and key Internet constituencies, according to Assistant Secretary Larry Strickling, with those discussions covering issues such as privacy, child protection, cybersecurity, copyright protection, and Internet governance. The outcomes of such discussions will be “flexible” but may result in recommendations for legislation or regulation, Strickling said in a speech at the Media Institute in Washington this week. The new approach (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2010/MediaInstitute_02242010.html) is a far cry from a US government that consciously decided not to intrude into the internet’s functioning and growth and in so doing allowed an academic network to turn into a global communications phenomenon. Strickling referred to these roots arguing that it was “the right policy for the United States in the early stages of the Internet, and the right message to send to the rest of the world.” But, he continued, “that was then and this is now. As we at NTIA approach a wide range of Internet policy issues, we take the view that we are now in the third generation of Internet policy making.” Outlining three decades of internet evolution - from transition to commercialization, from the garage to Main Street, and now, starting in 2010, the “Policy 3.0” approach - Strickling argued that with the internet is now a social network as well a business network. “We must take rules more seriously.” He cited a number of examples where this new approach was needed: end users worried about credit card transactions, content providers who want to prevent their copyright, companies concerned about hacking, network neutrality, and foreign governments worried about Internet governance systems. The decision to effectively end the policy that made the internet what it is today is part of a wider global trend of governments looking to impose rules on use of the network by its citizens. In the UK, the Digital Economy Bill currently making its way through Parliament has been the subject of significant controversy for advocating strict rules on copyright infringement and threatening to ban people from the internet if they are found to do so. The bill includes a wide variety of other measures, including giving regulator Ofcom a wider remit, forcing ISPs to monitor their customers’ behavior, and allowing the government to take over the dot-uk registry. In New Zealand, a similar measure to the UK’s cut-off provision has been proposed by revising the Copyright Act to allow a tribunal to fine those found guilty of infringing copyright online as well as suspend their Internet accounts for up to six months. And in Italy this week, three Google executives were sentenced to jail for allowing a video that was subsequently pulled down to be posted onto its YouTube video site. Internationally, the Internet Governance Forum – set up by under a United Nations banner to deal with global governance issues – is due to end its experimental run this year and become an acknowledged institution. However, there are signs that governments are increasingly dominating the IGF, with civil society and the Internet community sidelined in the decision-making process. In this broader context, the US government’s newly stated policy is more in line with the traditional laissez-faire internet approach. Internet Policy 3.0 also offers a more global perspective than the isolationist approach taken by the previous Bush administration. In explicitly stating that foreign governments will be a part of the upcoming discussions, Strickling recognizes the United States’ unique position as the country that gives final approval for changes made to the internet’s “root zone.” Currently the global Internet is dependent on an address book whose contents are changed through a contract that the US government has granted to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number (ICANN), based in Los Angeles. ICANN recently adjusted its own agreement with the US government to give it more autonomy and now reports to the global Internet community through a series of reviews. Strickling sits on the panel of one of those reviews. Overall, this new approach could enable the US government to regain the loss of some of its direct influence through recommendations made in policy reports. But internet old hands will still decry the loss of a policy that made the network what it is today. ® Archives [https://www.listbox.com/images/feed-icon-10x10.jpg] [https://www.listbox.com/images/listbox-logo-small.png] ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From ocl at gih.com Sat Feb 27 17:08:29 2010 From: ocl at gih.com (Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:08:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> I don't know about everyone else, but I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion and I thank all those taking part - I've certainly learnt a thing or two and put a few new authors in my future reading list. Best part of it all, I recognise that some people have taken some serious amount of time to explain their position, and I really respect that, especially since this kind of teaching is free! :-) Now I do have one comment to answer a question that Milton asked a few days ago. I am unable to develop it as eloquently as others, yet I'd like to throw it in the arena: Le 24/02/2010 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > And tell me how dividing up the world into "governments" (an institutionalized collectivity with guns) "business" (corporate entities based on trade/markets) and "civil society" (which overlaps with both previous categories and has no homogeneity of interest and no guns and no money other than what the first two give it) makes any sense. > I usually equate: - governments: law and order - business: economy and money - civil society: conscience Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out and either the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable extreme. That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From gurstein at gmail.com Sat Feb 27 17:36:33 2010 From: gurstein at gmail.com (michael gurstein) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:36:33 +0800 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CE2@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> Message-ID: Wow, that takes me back. It's been 30 years or so since anyone quoted Popper at me... I'm more as you perhaps expect, of the Adorno, Kuhn, Feyerabend persuasion but I'll do raised (historiographic) muskets with you at a quad of your choice (my preference is the Trinity Commons) at daybreak any fine spring morning of your choice. Of course I missed Whitehead but his tradition lived on... Collingwood to the ready... MBG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 1:59 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; michael gurstein Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Michael, There's actually no logical contradiction between the two positions you cite. I'd suggest you do some readings on the debate over methodological individualism (MI) in the social sciences. You will discover that all serious social scientists who contest MI will concede, at the very least, that any collectivity is in the end composed of individual human beings; and you will discover that all serious social scientists who support MI will concede that there are collective phenomena in which the group is more than the sum of its parts. The debate is about the degree to which one attributes an independent existence to the collective unit or tries to explain it in terms of the interactions of individuals. What's more interesting about your intervention is that you go after me but not Avri, who you could have accused of the same contradiction in reverse. What the heck, maybe I should invoke Hitler again to put an end to this. --MM ________________________________________ From: michael gurstein [gurstein at gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:06 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: FW: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand Speaking of contradictions: MM(1): Any collectivity is in the end composed of individual human beings. MM(2): No one who seriously studies that history can explain what happened in those societies by reference to a malevolent individual alone. (And I know that I'm quoting out of context etc.etc. but the problem with taking an absolutist position (MM1) is that one very quickly runs into internal contradictions in any encounter with the real world (MM2). MbG -----Original Message----- From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2010 4:36 AM To: 'governance at lists.cpsr.org'; 'Avri Doria' Subject: RE: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > > you have got to be kidding. > > maybe it depends on the type of historiography one is partial to and > as far as i can tell unless one believes in the relatively marxist > historical moment sort of historical explanation, one is stuck with > the great man of history explanation. I think your view is incredibly unrealistic, even bizarre. Authoritarian monsters like Hitler, Mao, Stalin can only do what they do by playing groups off against each other, by claiming for themselves the ability to represent and enact collective ideals, and by seizing collective capabilities. No one who seriously studies that history can explain what happened in those societies by reference to a malevolent individual alone. They capitalize on and help to create group animosities and loyalties. How do you get people to massacre Jews without group loyalties and prejudices, us against them? How do you legitimize wars and get soldiers to fight and kill people they don't know without appeal to things like "patriotism," duty to society and the state, cultural or racial differences? This has nothing to do with Marxist historicism, which posits laws of history independent of individuals. > it is individuals, natural and corporate, who commit all the crimes - > at the boundary of the individual is where murder, Ah I see, so you are not only unwilling to assign individuals rights, and place them at the center of concern for well being, you are also willing to assign to them responsibility for all crimes. Is the flaw in your position not obvious? Please explain to me how individuals qua individuals are responsible for all the world's evils but individuals as members of groups suddenly become angels who free themselves from all this iniquity. I will be interested in this explanation. > but without an individual in his very own individual voice or very own > trigger finger nothing like WW2 or Vietnam or Iraq or .... could ever > happen. Utter rubbish. those triggers get pulled because of tremendous social pressures, not to mention massive levels of state taxation and coercion. They operate at the group level. You and I can war against each other as individuals, but there is no way our feuds can reach the destructive scale of modern warfare unless we pull into the picture collective differences and animosities and collective capabilities. > as one of those who yammer about groups being the only way to go And you are ignoring my main point: for every group, there are non-members of the group, outsiders, people who are excluded and different from the group and its identity. Even a group formed with the most benevolent of intentions tends to view outsiders suspiciously and to exclude. You don't see that as having anything to do with the conflicts and problems of human history? Remarkable. Your view is so one-sided. As an advocate of individual rights, I have no problem recognizing and dealing with the problems that abusive individual action can cause. I have trouble understanding how someone can fail to recognize any threat or issues stemming from group boundaries and differences. ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t= ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Feb 27 19:56:46 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 16:56:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> Message-ID: <896789.59947.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> This sounds quite persuasive.  But MM is speaking of getting together to control or guide --- why did he use the term "dividing up"?  This is the fallacy that begets segregation and the focus on differences rather than shared traits. This is the beginning of the great thrust leadership into battle as opposed to peace.   Clearly Olivier is drawn into these "distinctions" rather than looking for charactaristics of sharing. So MMs question is rightfully answered "your right Milton it makes no sense to divide up", regardless of your classifications the originating premise is downright antique. Get with the global village kids! --- On Sat, 2/27/10, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 10:08 PM I don't know about everyone else, but I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion and I thank all those taking part - I've certainly learnt a thing or two and put a few new authors in my future reading list. Best part of it all, I recognise that some people have taken some serious amount of time to explain their position, and I really respect that, especially since this kind of teaching is free! :-) Now I do have one comment to answer a question that Milton asked a few days ago. I am unable to develop it as eloquently as others, yet I'd like to throw it in the arena: Le 24/02/2010 20:26, Milton L Mueller a écrit : > And tell me how dividing up the world into "governments" (an institutionalized collectivity with guns) "business" (corporate entities based on trade/markets) and "civil society" (which overlaps with both previous categories and has no homogeneity of interest and no guns and no money other than what the first two give it) makes any sense. >    I usually equate: - governments: law and order - business: economy and money - civil society: conscience Any social ecosystem requires all three to work. Take one out and either the system will fail, tear itself apart, or reach an untenable extreme. That's why I believe in multi-stakeholderism. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net Sat Feb 27 20:13:05 2010 From: cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net (Eric Dierker) Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:13:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <667788.7847.qm@web83916.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Get even closer to home. Look at the continued failure of the ICANN community to form a "constituency" for Registrants. The most obvious and clear case of rightfully placing folks in a group -- yet it cannot be done.   Then look at deity versus idea -- for centuries man has needed to place a human face on an Idea. From Apollo to Zeus to Thor to Mohammed to Mao - even Lincoln. Man seems incapable of placing importance strictly on theory or Idea, he must have a Christ or it is just too ethereal and abstract.  Hitler --- big deal. Obama --big deal Idi Amin -- big deal, pol pot --big deal --- anyone could have filled these shoes -- it was an idea based upon difference that made the "man" popular.   Milton is right we no longer need the human. Joe Sixpack can carry the message. Mankind is evolving to where we can handle the abstract idea. We are beginning to be able to judge the quality of a womens speech without having to know her Alma Mater or pedigree. The world is becoming a giant 12 step program based upon Anonymity and attraction rather than personality and promotion.   But the Registrants still flail and flounder because in fact they are too egotistical and arrogant and individualistic to elect and follow a leader. Milton NonCom group however flourishes and revels in the glory of patting each other on the back and giving each other awards and titles and therefor fits in, in this divide, segregate and prosper current model of multistakeholderism.   When we can give each soul, each personality respect enough that we can truly judge and respectfully interface -- idea to idea not title to title then we will have the true formation for global governance.   It will be good when individual rights are just a given and we begin to give rights to ideas. --- On Sat, 2/27/10, Yehuda Katz wrote: From: Yehuda Katz Subject: Re: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Saturday, February 27, 2010, 9:22 PM Lets make the discussion relevant  to the 21st century , Shall we discuss APAC as a Stakeholder as it is involved in the American Multi stakeholder Political Landscape. It's a much better analogy to work with, and scales globally in its effects through U.S. Foreign Policies. The point made, is that Multi stakeholder' Group(s) can be just as effective upon the population as the Despots (Hitler, Mussolini etc...), Just to be clear, I'm only making a point about the 'Effectiveness' of a group and that of an individual, not the political ideology associated (good or bad). Either way there is an associated economies-to-scale within the era that allow these powers to be created. And for the most part those economies are capitalists (although some are Socialist with capatalist underpinnings). Until now in Human History, I belive (as may Milton), that it is "possible", that the Internet has 'significantly-reduced' the  requisite 'economies-to-scale' previously necessary for the rise too Power [by an Individual (political figure) or Stakeholder Group], so that an Individual (personal empowerment) within a Direct Democracy can be had, without the need for representative surrogate (Leader or Group). The Internet can level the playing field 'Politically', however the Internet cannot level the playing field 'Economically', so the issue  regarding Human Rights in regards to 'needs' (Standards of Living) cannot be resolved by the Internet, they can be only resolved through a system of economic fair trade working in equilibrium. While we are on this subject, I would also point out that equal efforts toward finding equilibrium must be put forth on the Ecological Playing field as well. Over Population is the primary problem at this point in time, and any scaling up made through say, Internet Governance efficiency, impacts the Human Population and thus the Environment takes the brunt of the Ecological tax. So the two (Economy and Ecology are intrinsèque) are equally important, Anyway you get the idea. --- AIPAC 'American Israel Public Affairs Committee' http://www.aipac.org/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIPAC____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list:      governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to:      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see:      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From demartin at polito.it Sun Feb 28 06:30:20 2010 From: demartin at polito.it (J.C. DE MARTIN) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 12:30:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE2243@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE2243@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Message-ID: <4B8A53CC.7010400@polito.it> Dear Giacomo, I believe that you are mixing two different levels, namely, rules on the Internet with Internet Governance. On the first level, when you say that currently there is "zero regulation" or no "basic minimum set of rules" on the Internet, I believe you are plainly wrong: the full set of provisions of the national civil and criminal codes, in fact, fully apply to the Internet. Illicit behavior is illicit behavior whether it happens online or offline. Therefore, there are plenty of rules, and, in practically all cases I am aware of, no need for new rules, if not a revision of some old laws, which the Internet is showing to be strikingly obsolete and illiberal (I am thinking of the Italian press law or of the Italian broadcasting law, for instance). Therefore, rather than extending the "heavy regulation" of broadcasting, which ultimately was rooted on the (often artificial) scarcity of the electromagnetic spectrum, we should be seizing this historic opportunity to expand freedom of expression (within the limits of law, e.g., defamation, of course). A whole different level, in my view, is the level of Internet Governance. Which, ultimately, is a matter of discussing power, that is, sovereignty: who has power on the Internet, why, how, with what limits. Best regards, juan carlos juan carlos de martin co-director / nexa center for internet & society politecnico di torino http://nexa.polito.it Mazzone, Giacomo wrote (on 2/27/10 7:16 PM): > > *Dear Max,* > > *In Italy currently there is a very bad atmosphere on civil rights and > freedom of expression. I'm sad to say so, but it's exactly what's > happening.* > > *In the last months various initiatives have tried to restrict in > various forms the Internet freedom. Some of them have been stopped in > Parliament, others have gone through, others have been promoted > directly by the government, other -like in the case you pinpoint- by > singles judges.* > > * When I say that the distance between the world of broadcasting and > of the press (heavily regulated) and the world of the Internet (with > zero regulation) cannot continue to be like it is Today, I'm really > serious.* > > *The need for a basic minimum set of rules become more and more a need > also for Internet, in order not to be exposed to the vexations of one > country, one community or a single judge.* > > *This fact (like the many others before and the next ones that will > inevitably follow) can only reinforce our unanimous belief that there > is a real need for a governance of the Internet...* > > * Giacomo* > > *From:* Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] > *Sent:* mercredi, 24. février 2010 16:49 > *To:* irp; governance; expression > *Subject:* [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible > for content that users upload" "the Web as we know it will cease to exist" > > Hi IRPlers, FoE coalition & IGClers > > I believe many of you have heard about the devestating result of the > vividown court-case in Italy, but for those who have not please read > the Google policy-blog-post > . > > It is important to stress that this is not about Google, but about > Freedom of Expression online! Here is a summary: > > A judge in Milan today convicted three Google executives in a case > involving a reprehensible video posted to Google Video that we took > down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. The video > showed an autistic boy being bullied by several classmates. In essence > this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google > Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We > will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on > trial had nothing to do with the video in question. > > The law in Europe -- as in the U.S. -- specifically _gives hosting > providers a safe harbor from liability_ so long as they remove illegal > content once they are notified of its existence. These laws are > premised on the belief that a notice and takedown regime helps > creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal > privacy. > > > If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and > _indeed every social network and any community bulletin board_, are > held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is > uploaded to them --- every piece of text, every photo, every file, > every video --- then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and > many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it > brings could disappear. > > Below is some additional background on the case. We would of course > _welcome any public statements_ you might be willing to make today > expressing concern about this ruling. > > It would be great if we could agree to speak up on this matter! > > Best > > Max > > Some more background articles: > New York Times story on ruling: > http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?hp > > Leslie Harris/CDT op-ed: Italy's Case Against Google is a Bad Moon Rising > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-harris/italys-case-against-googl_b_395634.html > > Jeff Jarvis: Italy Endangers the Web > http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/02/24/italy-endangers-the-web/ > > > UK Member of Parliament Tom Watson: "This is the biggest threat to > internet freedom we have seen in Europe. The only people who will > support this decision are Silvio Berlusconi and the governments of > China and Iran. It effectively breaks the internet in Italy." > http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809508-google-bosses-convicted-over-abuse-video-of-downs-syndrome-boy.do > > TechCrunch: Can Someone Tell this Italian Judge what YouTube is? > http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/02/24/can-someone-tell-this-italian-judge-what-youtube-is/ > > -- > > > "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet." > ---William Gibson > > ........................................................................... > > Max Senges > Berlin > > www.maxsenges.com > > Mobile: 01622122755 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From jefsey at jefsey.com Sun Feb 28 09:34:12 2010 From: jefsey at jefsey.com (jefsey) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 15:34:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand In-Reply-To: <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> References: <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C79C6CCE@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B85046E.6080509@wzb.eu> <75822E125BCB994F8446858C4B19F0D701C7AB3897@SUEX07-MBX-04.ad.syr.edu> <4B8997DD.4030103@gih.com> Message-ID: <20100228143458.ECD5491000@npogroups.org> At 23:08 27/02/2010, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >- governments: law and order >- business: economy and money >- civil society: conscience To keep things ballanced I would suggest: - civil society: culture and ethic, - networks: protocols and relations - person: liberty and conscience I class norms and standards in protocols, and every type of connection, cooperation and coalition in relations. Otherwise protocols would belong to law (as under communications monopolies). Otherwise how to reconcile that scheme with the WSIS affirmation that the Information Society must be "people centered, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona"? jfc ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t From mazzone at ebu.ch Sun Feb 28 13:00:55 2010 From: mazzone at ebu.ch (Mazzone, Giacomo) Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 19:00:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for In-Reply-To: <4B8A53CC.7010400@polito.it> References: <4d976d8e1002240748j67480965n63552c7238d840a1@mail.gmail.com> <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE2243@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> <4B8A53CC.7010400@polito.it> Message-ID: <488E8B79032F7642949B28142651689CF437AE227B@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch> Dear Juan Carlos, I was just cutting a long story short, giving for granted a certain number of assumptions within the list of receivers. Of course I agree with you that doesn't make sense to have broadcasting regulations extended to the internet. But the problem of who governs the Internet is intimate linked to who shall enforce the existing national regulations. Apart of the Google case in Italy (that is self evident), how to enforce for instance my privacy rights on Facebook, that is only subject to California jurisdiction ? This is why I believe that the work we're doing within IGF contest could also impact one day on the area that is currently (insufficiently or badly) regulated by national laws.... Have a nice week end. Giacomo From: J.C. DE MARTIN [mailto:demartin at polito.it] Sent: dimanche, 28. février 2010 12:30 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for Dear Giacomo, I believe that you are mixing two different levels, namely, rules on the Internet with Internet Governance. On the first level, when you say that currently there is "zero regulation" or no "basic minimum set of rules" on the Internet, I believe you are plainly wrong: the full set of provisions of the national civil and criminal codes, in fact, fully apply to the Internet. Illicit behavior is illicit behavior whether it happens online or offline. Therefore, there are plenty of rules, and, in practically all cases I am aware of, no need for new rules, if not a revision of some old laws, which the Internet is showing to be strikingly obsolete and illiberal (I am thinking of the Italian press law or of the Italian broadcasting law, for instance). Therefore, rather than extending the "heavy regulation" of broadcasting, which ultimately was rooted on the (often artificial) scarcity of the electromagnetic spectrum, we should be seizing this historic opportunity to expand freedom of expression (within the limits of law, e.g., defamation, of course). A whole different level, in my view, is the level of Internet Governance. Which, ultimately, is a matter of discussing power, that is, sovereignty: who has power on the Internet, why, how, with what limits. Best regards, juan carlos juan carlos de martin co-director / nexa center for internet & society politecnico di torino http://nexa.polito.it Mazzone, Giacomo wrote (on 2/27/10 7:16 PM): Dear Max, In Italy currently there is a very bad atmosphere on civil rights and freedom of expression. I'm sad to say so, but it's exactly what's happening. In the last months various initiatives have tried to restrict in various forms the Internet freedom. Some of them have been stopped in Parliament, others have gone through, others have been promoted directly by the government, other -like in the case you pinpoint- by singles judges. When I say that the distance between the world of broadcasting and of the press (heavily regulated) and the world of the Internet (with zero regulation) cannot continue to be like it is Today, I'm really serious. The need for a basic minimum set of rules become more and more a need also for Internet, in order not to be exposed to the vexations of one country, one community or a single judge. This fact (like the many others before and the next ones that will inevitably follow) can only reinforce our unanimous belief that there is a real need for a governance of the Internet... Giacomo From: Max Senges [mailto:maxsenges at gmail.com] Sent: mercredi, 24. février 2010 16:49 To: irp; governance; expression Subject: [governance] If web-platforms are "criminally responsible for content that users upload" "the Web as we know it will cease to exist" Hi IRPlers, FoE coalition & IGClers I believe many of you have heard about the devestating result of the vividown court-case in Italy, but for those who have not please read the Google policy-blog-post. It is important to stress that this is not about Google, but about Freedom of Expression online! Here is a summary: A judge in Milan today convicted three Google executives in a case involving a reprehensible video posted to Google Video that we took down within hours of being notified by the Italian police. The video showed an autistic boy being bullied by several classmates. In essence this ruling means that employees of hosting platforms like Google Video are criminally responsible for content that users upload. We will appeal this astonishing decision because the Google employees on trial had nothing to do with the video in question. The law in Europe -- as in the U.S. -- specifically gives hosting providers a safe harbor from liability so long as they remove illegal content once they are notified of its existence. These laws are premised on the belief that a notice and takedown regime helps creativity flourish and support free speech while protecting personal privacy. If that principle is swept aside and sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board, are held responsible for vetting every single piece of content that is uploaded to them - every piece of text, every photo, every file, every video - then the Web as we know it will cease to exist, and many of the economic, social, political and technological benefits it brings could disappear. Below is some additional background on the case. We would of course welcome any public statements you might be willing to make today expressing concern about this ruling. It would be great if we could agree to speak up on this matter! Best Max Some more background articles: New York Times story on ruling: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/25/technology/companies/25google.html?hp Leslie Harris/CDT op-ed: Italy's Case Against Google is a Bad Moon Rising http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leslie-harris/italys-case-against-googl_b_395634.html Jeff Jarvis: Italy Endangers the Web http://www.buzzmachine.com/2010/02/24/italy-endangers-the-web/ UK Member of Parliament Tom Watson: "This is the biggest threat to internet freedom we have seen in Europe. The only people who will support this decision are Silvio Berlusconi and the governments of China and Iran. It effectively breaks the internet in Italy." http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23809508-google-bosses-convicted-over-abuse-video-of-downs-syndrome-boy.do TechCrunch: Can Someone Tell this Italian Judge what YouTube is? http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/02/24/can-someone-tell-this-italian-judge-what-youtube-is/ -- "The future is here. It's just not widely distributed yet." -William Gibson ........................................................................... Max Senges Berlin www.maxsenges.com Mobile: 01622122755 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance at lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t