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.igfremot